University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


HORACE  MANN'S  LETTERS 


ON 


THE  EXTENSION  OF  SLAVERY 

INTO 

CALIFORNIA  AID  FEW  MEXICO; 

AND   ON 

THE  DUTY  OF  CONGRESS  TO  PROVIDE  THE  TRIAL  BY  JURY  FOR  ALLEGED 

FUGITIVE  SLAVES. 


LETTER  I. 

WEST  NEWTON,  May  3,  1850. 

To  the  Hon.  James  Richardson,  I.  Cleveland,  and 

John  Gardner,  of  Dedham  ;  Hon.  D.  A.  Simmons, 

John  J.  Clarke,  Francis  Hilliard,  and  George  R. 

Russell,  of  Rozlury,  fyc,  8,-c. 

GENTLEMEN:  Having  been  called  home  on  ac 
count  of  sickness  in  my  family,  I  have  just  receiv 
ed,  at  this  place,  your  kind  invitation  to  meet  and 
address  my  constituents  of  the  8th  Congressional 
District,  and  to  give  them  my  "  views  and  opinions 
upon  the  question  of  the  immediate  admission  of  Cali 
fornia,  and  other  questions  now  before  Congress  aris 
ing  out  of  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  the  treaty 
with  Mexico." 

A  request  from  so  high  a  source  has  almost  the 
force  of  a  command.  Yet  I  dare  not  promise  to 
comply.  I  am  liable  at  any  moment  to  be  recalled, 
and,  instead  of  speaking  here,  to  vote  there,  upon 
the  question  to  which  you  refer.  I  might  be 
summoned  to  return  on  the  day  appointed  for  us 
to  meet.  The  only  alternative,  therefore,  which 
is  left  me.  is  to  address  you  by  letter.  This  I  will 
do,  if  I  can -find  time.  I  shall  thus  comply  with 
your  request,  in  substance,  if  not  in  form. 

On  many  accounts,  I  have  the  extremest  reluc 
tance  to  appear  before  the  public  on  the  present 
occasion.  "My  views,  on  some  vital  questions, 
differ  most  materially  from  those  of  gentlemen  for 
whom  I  have  felt  the  profoundest  respect;  and 
for  some  of  whom  I  cherish  the  strongest  personal 
attachment.  Bui  I  feel,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
my  constituents,  having  intrusted  to  me  some  of 
their  most  precious  interests,  are  entitled  to  know 
my  '-views  and  opinions"  respecting  the  hopes 
and  the  dangers  that  encompass  them.  I  shall 
not,  therefore,  take  the  responsibility  of  declining. 

I  will  premise  farther,  that  my  relations  to 
political  parties,  for  many  years  past,  have  left  me 
as  free  from  all  partisan  bias  "  as  the  lot  of  human 
ity  will  admit."  For  twelve  years  I  held  an  office 
whose  duties  required  me  to  abstain  from  all  ac 
tive  cooperation  in  political  conflicts ;  and  that 

Bfuell  &  BLaiichard,  Printers. 


WITH   JNOT.ES. 


duty  was  so  religiously  fulfilled,  that,  to  my 
knowledge,  I  was  never  charged  with  its  violation. 
During  the  Presidential  contest  of  1848,  those  ob 
ligations  of  neutrality  still  rested  upon  me.  For 
a  year  afterwards,  I  was  not  called  upon  to  do  any 
official  act  displeasing  to  any  party  amongst  us. 
This  interval  I  employed  in  forming  the  best 
opinion  I  could  of  public  men  and  measures,  and 
their  influence  upon  the  moral  and  industrial  in 
terests  of  the  country.  I  had  long  entertained 
most  decided  convictions  in  favor  of  protecting 
American  labor,  in  favor  of  cheap  postage,  and  of 
security  to  the  lives  and  property  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  engaged  in  commerce.  But  a  new  ques 
tion  had  arisen, — the  great  question  of  freedom  or 
slavery  in  our  recently  acquired  territories,— and 
this  question  I  deemed,  for  the  time  being,  to  be, 
though  not  exclusive  of  others,  yet  paramount  to 
them.  Or  rather,  I  saw  that  nothing  could  be  so 
favorable  to  all  the  last-named  interests,  as  the 
proper  adjustment  of  the  first.  He  who  would 
provide  for  the  welfare  of  mankind  must  first 
provide  for  their  liberty. 

Sympathizing,  then,  on  different  points  with  dif 
ferent  parties,  but  exclusively  bound  to  none,  I 
stood,  in  reference  to  the  great  question  of  terri 
torial  freedom  or  slavery,  in  the  position  of  the 
true  mother  in  the'  litigation  before  Solomon,  pre 
ferring  that  the  object  of  my  love  should  be  spared 
in  the  hands  of  any  one,  rather  than  perish  in  my 
own. 

Our  present  difficulties,  which,  as  you  well 
know,  have  arrested  the  gaze  of  the  nation,  and 
almost  suspended  the  legislative  functions  of  Con 
gress,  pertain  to  the  destiny  of  freedom  or  of  sla 
very,  to  which  our  new  territories  are  to  be  con 
signed.  After  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  and 
Florida,  and  Texas,  for  the  aggrandizement  and 
security  of  the  slave  power ;  after  the  aboriginal 
occupants  of  the  soil  of  the  Southern  States  have 
been  slaughtered,  or  driven  from  their  homes,  at  an 
expense  of  not  less  than  a  hundred  millions  of  dol 
lars,  and  at  the  infinite  expense  of  our  national 
reputation  for  justice  and  humanity;  and  after 
the  area  of  the  slave  States  has  been  made 


almost  double  that  of  the  free  States,  while  the 
population  of  the  free  is  about  double  that  of  the 
slave ;  the  reasons  seem  so  strong  that  they  can 
hardly  be  made  stronger,  why  the  career  of  our 
Government  as  a  slavery-extending  power,  should 
be  arrested.  On  the  other  hand,  the  oligarchy 
who  rule  the  South,  seeing  that,  notwithstanding 
their  rich  and  almost  illimitable  domain,  they  are 
rapidly  falling  behind  the  North  in  all  the  dis 
tinctive  elements  of  civilization  and  well-being, — 
industry,  temperance,  education,  wealth, — not 
only  defend  the  Upas  that  blasts  their  soil,  as 
though  it  were  the  Tree  of  Life,  but  seek  to 
transplant  it  to  other  lands.  With  but  about 
three  slaves  to  a  square  mile, — three  millions  of 
slaves  to  nearly  a  million  of  square  miles, — they 
say  they  are  too  crowded,  that  they  feel  a  sen.se  of 
suffocation,  and  must  have  more  room,  when  all 
their  weakness  and  pain  proceed,  not  from  the 
limited  quantity,  but  from  the  malignant  quality  of 
the  atmosphere  they  breathe.  Hence  the  war  with 
Mexico,  commenced  and  prosecuted  to  add  slave 
territory  and  slave  States  to  the  Southern  section. 
Hence  the  refusal  to  accept  propositions  of  peace, 
unless  territory  south  of  latitude  36  deg.  30  min. 
(the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  so  called.)  should 
be  ceded  to  us.  Hence  when  the  Mexican  nego 
tiators  proposed  to  insert  a  prohibition  of  slavery 
in  the  treaty  of  cession,  and  declared  that  the 
Inquisition  would  not  be  more  odious  to  the 
American  people  than  the  reinstitution  of  slavery 
to  them,  our  minister,  Mr.  Trist,  told  them  he 
would  not  consent  to  such  a  prohibition,  though 
they  would  cover  the  soil  a  foot  deep  with  gold. 
And  hence,  also,  the  determination  of  a  portion  of 
the  Southern  members  of  Congress,  to  stop  the 
whole  machinery  of  the  Government,  to  sacrifice 
all  the  great  interests  of  the  country,  and  assail 
even  the  Union  itself,  unless  slavery  shall  be  per 
mitted  to  cross  the  Rio  Grande,  and  enter  the 
vast  regions  of  the  West,  as  it  heretofore  crossed 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Sabine. 

Even  in  1846,  when  the  war  against  Mexico 
was  declared,  all  men  of  sagacity  foresaw  the  pres 
ent  conflict.  Could  that  question  have  been 
decided  on  its  merits ;  or  could  the  institutions  to 
be  planted  upon  the  territory  we  might  acquire, 
be  determined  by  the  unbiased  suffrages  of  the 
American  people,  no  war  would  have  been  declar 
ed,  and  no  territory  acquired.  But  the  great 
political  leaders  of  the  South  expected  to  make 
up  both  for  their  numerical  weakness  and  for 
the  injustice  of  their  cause,  by  connecting  the 
question  of  slavery-extension  with  that  of  future 
Presidential  elections,  and  with  the  strife  of  par 
ties.  They  promised  themselves  that  they  could 
draw  over  leading  Northern  men  to  their  support, 
by  offering  them  the  Tantalus  cup  of  Presidential 
honors ;  and  then  by  the  force  of  party  cohesion 
and  discipline  insure  the  support  of  the  whole 
descending-scale  of  office  expectants.  Early  in 
the  present  session  of  Congress,  it  was  distinctly 
declared  from  a  high  Southern  source,  that  the 
South  must  do  most  for  those  Northern  men  who 
would  do  most  for  them.  A  few  words  will  make  it 
apparent  how  faithfully  this  plan  has  been  adhered 
to,  and  how  successful  it  may  become. 

No  Northern  Democrat,  opposed  to  slavery 


extension,  could  expect  the  support  of  the 
Southern  Democracy.  Hence,  Gen.  Cass  stept 
promptly  forward,  and  declared  in  his  Nicholson 
letter,  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  territories.  This  has  been 
technically  called  his  "  bid,"  or  his  «  first  bid."  It 
was  deemed  satisfactory  by  the  South ;  for,  ac 
cording  to  their  philosophy,  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave  is  the  natural  or  normal  relation  of  man 
kind  ;  and  therefore,  where  no  prohibition  of  it 
exists,  slavery  flows  into  free  territory,  as  water 
runs  down  hill.  This  avowal  of  Gen.  Cass  was 
rendered  more  signal  and  valuable  to  the  South, 
because,  for  the  greater  part  of  his  political  life, 
he  had  taken  oaths,  held  offices  and  administered 
laws,  in  undeniable  contradiction  to  the  declara 
tion  then  made.  The  Ordinance  of  1787  was 
expressly  recognised  by  the  First  Congress,  held 
under  the  Constitution,  [See  ch.  8  ]  It  was  mod 
ified  in  part,  and  confirmed  as  to  the  rest ;  and  in 
holding  offices  under  this,  Gen.  Cass  had  laid  the 
foundation  of  his  honors  and  his  fortune.  His 
declaration,  therefore,  against  all  interdiction  of 
slavery,  made  under  circumstances  so  extraor 
dinary  and  in  contradiction  of  the  whole  tenor  of 
his  past  life,  was  hailed  with  acclamation  by  the 
South,  and  he  was  unanimously  declared,  at  Bal 
timore,  to  be  the  accepted  candidate  of  the 
Democracy,  for  the  office  of  President.  The  com 
mon  notion  is  that  a  man  shows  his  love  for  a 
cause  by  the  amount  of  sacrifice  he  will  make  for 
it ;  and  as  consistency,  honor  and  truth,  are  the  most 
precious  elements  in  character,  who  could  sacri 
fice  more  than  he ! 

To  the  honor  of  the  Whig  party  be  it  said, 
there  was  not  a  Northern  man  to  be  found,  who, 
to  gain  the  support  of  the  South,  would  espouse 
its  pro-slavery  doctrines,  or  invent  any  new  read 
ing  of  the  Constitution  to  give  them  a  semblance 
of  law.  Hence,  at  the  Philadelphia  Convention 
no  Northern  Whig  received  even  so  much  as  a 
complimentary  vote.  The  judicial  eminence  o 
Judge  McLean,  the  military  eminence  of  Gen 
Scott,  were  passed  contemptuously  by ;  and  Mr 
Webster,  acknowledged  to  be  the  grea'est  states 
man  of  the  age,  received  but  fourteen  votes,  out  o 
almost  three  hundred :  and  twelve  of  these  were 
from  Massachusetts.  'Mr.  Webster  had  spoken 
more  eloquent  words  for  Liberty  than  any  other 
living  man,  and  this  distinguished  neglect  was 
doubtless  intended  to  teach  him  the  lesson 
that  the  path  to  Presidential  honors  did  not  lie 
through  an  advocacy  of  the  rights  of  man.  Gen, 
Taylor  was  nominated  and  chosen.  He  was  un 
derstood  to  take  neutral  ground.  Discountenanc 
ing  the  veto  power,  yet,  if  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  who  are  chosen  directly  from  and  by 
the  people,  and  the  Senate  who  are  chosen  by 
the  States,  will  pass  a  territorial  bill,  either  with 
or  without  a  prohibition  of  slavery,  he  will  ap 
prove  it.  This  is  the  common  opinion,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  of  its  correctness. 

Under  these  circumstances,  a  most  desperate 
effort  was  made  at  the  close  of  the  last  Congress 
to  provide  a  Government  for  the  territories,  with 
no  prohibition  of  slavery.  Had  Gen.  Cass  beer 
elected,  no  such  effort  would  have  beep  necessary. 
for  he  was  pledged  to  veto  a  prohibition.  Gen 


FT  UPRAR 


MP7 


Taylor  was  supposed  to  be  pledged  to  an  opposite 
course ;  and  hence  the  struggle.  The  facts  must 
be  so  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  all  that  they 
hardly  need  to  be  recounted.  The  House  per 
formed  its  duty  to  the  country  and  to  freedom, 
by  sending  territorial  bills  to  the  Senate,  contain 
ing  the  prohibitory  clause.  The  Senate,  equalling 
the  Northern  by  its  Southern  votes,  and  far  out 
numbering  the  Whigs  by  its  Democrats,  left  those 
bills  to  sleep  the  sleep  of  death  upon  its  table. 
But  during  the  closing  hours  of  the  session,  it 
foisted  a  provision  for  the  Government  of  the  ter 
ritories,  into  the  general  appropriation  bill;  and 
held  out  the  menace  that  this  bill  should  not 
pass  at  all,  unless  the  territorial  clause  should 
pass  with  it.  The  flagitiousness  of  this  proceed 
ing,  it  is  difficult  to  comprehend  and  impossible 
to  describe  The  appropriation  bill  is  one  on  which 
the  working,  and  even  the  continuance  of  the 
Government  depend.  Without  it.  the  machinery 
of  the  State  must  cease  to  move.  Contracts  by 
the  Government  to  pay  money  must  be  violated. 
Officers  cannot  obtain  their  salaries.  Families 
must  be  left  without  subsistence.  If  long  con 
tinued,  all  judges  would  resign  and  courts  be 
broken  up;  and  when  justice  should  cease  to  be 
administered,  violence,  robbery,  and  every  form 
of  crime  would  run  riot  through  the  land. 

Besides,  an  appropriation  bill  and  a  bill  for  the 
government  of  Territories,  have  no  congruity 
with  each  other ;  they  are  not  relevant ;  neither 
is  germane  to  the  other.  Every  one  knows  it  to 
be  a  common  parliamentary  rule  that  when  a 
proposition  is  submitted  which  is  susceptible  of 
division,  any  one  member  has  a  right  to  demand 
it.  All  bills,  too,  for  raising  revenue,  must,  by 
the  Constitution,  originate  in  the  House  ;  and  the 
House  has  as  much  right  to  interfere  to  prevent 
the  Senate  from  ratifying  a  treaty,  as  the  Senate 
has  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  a  revenue  bill,  by 
adding  to  it  extraneous  provisions.  It  was  this 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  to  incorporate 
into  the  appropriation  bill  a  provision  most  un 
righteous  in  itself  and  most  odious  to  the  free 
sentiments  of  the  North,  which  led  to  the  pro 
tracted  session  on  the  night  of  the  3d  of  March, 
1849.  The  course  of  the  pro-slavery  leaders,  on  that 
occasion,  resembled  that  of  a  madman  who  should 
seiz?  a  torch,  and  stand  over  the  magazine  of  a 
ship,  and  proclaim  that  he  would  send  men  and 
vessel  to  destruction,  unless  they  would  steer  for 
his  port.  A  portion  of  the  House  confederated 
with  the  majority  of  the  Senate  in  this  unprin 
cipled  machination ;  but  the  larger  number  stood 
undaunted,  and  after  perils  such  as  so  precious 
an  interest  never  before  encountered,  the  pro- 
slavery  amendment  was  stricken  out,  and  its 
champions  were  foiled.  Through  that  memorable 
night,  the  friends  of  freedom  wrestled  like  Jacob 
with  the  angel  of  God,  and  though  the  session  did 
not  close  until  the  sun  of  a  Sabbath  morning 
shone  full  into  the  windows  of  the  Capitol,  yet  a 
holier  work  never  was  done  on  that  holy  day. 

It  was  with  a  joy  such  as  no  words  can  ever  ex 
press,  that  I  saw  the  Territories  rescued  from  the 
clutch  of  slavery  by  the  expiration  of  the  Thir 
tieth  Congress.  I  felt  confident  that  when  the 
Thirty-first  Congress  should  assemble,  it  would 


be  under  better  auspices,  and  with  a  stronger 
phalanx  on  the  side  of  freedom.  In  regard  to 
California,  those  hopes  have  been  fulfilled  ;  but  I 
proceed  to  state  how  they  have  been  nearly  ex 
tinguished  in  regard  to  the  residue  of  the  territory. 

Our  first  disaster  was  the  election  of  a  most 
adroit,  talented  and  zealous  pro-slavery  Speaker. 
A  better  organ  for  the  accomplishment  of  their 
purposes  the  friends  of  Slavery  could  not  have 
found,  nor  the  friends  of  Freedom  a  more  formi 
dable  opponent.  Whilst  the  pro-slavery  cham 
pions  of  the  South,  almost  without  distinction  of 
party,  exulted  over  this  triumph,  it  has  been  the 
occasion  of  most  lamentable  criminations  and  re 
criminations  at  the  North.  Southern  men  aban 
don  all  distinctions  of  Whig  or  Democrat  for  the 
cause  of  Slavery ;  would  to  God  we  could  do  as 
much  for  the  cause  of  Freedom. 

The  choice  of  a  pro-slavery  Speaker  was  imme 
diately  followed  by  the  appointment  of  most  ultra 
pro-slavery  committees.  Some  Free  Soil  mem 
bers,  it  is  true,  were  placed  upon  these  commit 
tees  ;  but  in  this  the  Speaker  only  carried  out 
more  fully  his  own  purposes  and  those  of  his 
party,  by  putting  what  they  considered  as  insane 
men  into  close  custody,  instead  of  letting  thein 
run  at  large.  He  showed,  however,  either  a  want 
of  courage  in  himself,  or  of  confidence  in  his 
chosen  guards ;  for,  on  the  District  of  Columbia 
Committie  he  detailed  a  file  of  five,  on  the  Judi 
ciary  Committee  a  file  of  four,  and  on  the  Terri 
torial  Committee  a  file  of  six  strong  pro-slavery 
men  for  the  safe  keeping  of  one  Free-Soiler. 

Within  an  hour  after  the  House  was  organized, 
Mr.  Root  of  Ohio  submitted  a  resolution,  instruct 
ing  the  Committee  on  Territories  to  report  Ter 
ritorial  bills,  prohibiting  slavery.  Many  true 
friends  to  freedom  believed  this  movement  to  be 
ill-timed  and  unfortunate ;  and  though  the  House 
then  refused,  by  a  handsome  vote,  to  lay  the  reso 
lution  on  the  table,  yet  when  it  came  up  for  con 
sideration  again,  the  first  decision  was  reversed 
by  about  the  same  majority.  There  is  abundant 
proof  that  the  latter  vote  did  not  express  the  true 
sentiment  of  the  House.  Not  a  few  voted  against 
the  resolution  avowedly  because  of  its  paternity, — 
thus  spiting  a  noble  son  on  account  of  its  obnox 
ious  father.  Others  repented  of  their  votes  as 
soon  as  they  came  to  reflect  that  the  record  would 
go  where  their  explanation  could  not  accompany 
it. 

But  unfortunately,  it  was  too  late.  There 
stands  the  record,  to  survive  through  all  time,  and 
to  be  read  of  all  men.  The  champions  of  slavery 
seized  upon  this  vote  as  a  propitious  omen.  They 
derided  and  scouted  the  Proviso  with  a  fierceness 
unknown  before.  They  shouted  their  threats  of 
disunion  with  a  more  defiant  tone,  should  any  at 
tempt  at  what  they  called  its  resurrection,  be 
made.  A  speech  was  delivered,  in  which  a  mas 
sacre  of  a  majority  of  the  House  was  distinctly 
shadowed  forth,  so  that  not  "  a  quorum  should  be 
left  to  do  business."  The  effect  of  that  vote  was 
almost  as  bad  as  though  it  meant  what  it  said. 

At  a  later  day,  when  a  bill  for  the  admission  of 
California  was  presented,  the  tactics  of  delay 
were  resorted  to,  and  midnight  found  us  calling  the 
yeas  and  nays,  for  more  than  the  thirtieth  time} 


on  questions  whose  frivolousness  and  vexatious- 
ness  cannot  be  indicated  by  numbers. 

The  proceedings  in  the  Senate,  however,  are 
those  which  now  threaten  the  most  disastrous 
consequences.  Early  in  the  session,  in  order  to 
bring  his  Northern  friends  up  to  the  doctrine 
that  it  is  unconstitutional  to  legislate  upon  sla 
very  in  the  Territories,  General  Cass  made  a 
speech,  in  which  he  denies  that  Congress  has  any 
power,  under  any  circumstances,  to  pass  any  law 
respecting  their  inhabitants.  According  to  that 
speech,  the  United  States  stands  in  the  relation 
of  a  foreign  Government  to  the  people  of  its  own 
Territories ;  and  if  they  set  up  a  king  or  estab 
lish  a  religion,  we  cannot  help  it ;  for  we  have  no 
more  power  or  right  to  control  them,  than  we  have 
the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  or  the  citizens  of 
France.  It  has  been  said  that  the  doctrine  of 
General  Cass  and  that  of  General  Taylor,  on  this 
subject,  are  identical ;  but  there  is  this  all-impor 
tant  difference  between  them :  General  Taylor 
maintains  the  right  of  Congress  to  legislate  for 
the  Territories,  and  will  doubtless  approve  any 
bill  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  them ;  but 
General  Cass,  denying  this  right  in  Congress, 
would,  if  President,  veto  such  a  bill.  He,  there 
fore,  would  leave  the  Territories  open  to  be  in 
vaded  and  possessed  by  slavery  ;  and  in  Southern 
law  and  practice,  possession  is  more  than  nine 
points. 

Next  came  Mr.  Clay's  Compromise  resolutions, 
so  called.  By  these,  California  was  to  be  admit 
ted  as  a  State ;  the  Territories  organized  without 
any  restriction  upon  slavery ;  the  Southwestern 
boundary  of  Texas  to  be  extended  to  the  Rio 
Grande ;  a  part  of  her  twelve  or  fifteen  million 
debt  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  on  condition 
of  her  abandoning  her  claim  to  a  part  of  New 
Mexico  lying  east  of  the  Rio  Grande;  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  and  the  inviolability  of  slavery  in  the 
District  during  the  good  pleasure  of  Maryland 
and  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  District ;  more  ef 
fectual  provision  for  the  restitution  of  fugitive 
slaves,  and  free  traffic  in  slaves  forever  between 
the  States,  unless  forbidden  by  themselves. 

A  compromise  is  a  settlement  of  difficulties  by 
mutual  concessions.  Let  us  examine  the  mutual 
ity  of  the  concessions  which  Mr.  Clay's  resolu 
tions  propose. 

In  the  first  place,  California  is  to  be  permitted 
to  remain  free,  if  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico 
and  Utah  may  be  opened  to  slavery.  But  Cali 
fornia  is  free  already ;  free  by  her  own  act ;  free 
without  any  concession  of  theirs,  and  without 
any  grace  but  the  grace  of  God.  It  is  mainly  oc 
cupied  by  a  Northern  population,  who  do  their 
own  work,  with  their  own  hands,  or  their  own 
brains.  Fifty  hardy  gold  diggers  from  the  North 
will  never  stand  all  day  knee-deep  in  water,  shovel 
earth,  rock  washers,  &c.,  under  a  broiling  sun. 
and  see  a  man  with  his  fifty  slaves  standing  under 
the  shade  of  a  tree,  or  having  an  umbrella  held 
over  his  head,  with  whip  in  hand,  and  without 
•wetting  his  dainty  glove,  or  soiling  his  japanned 
boot,  pocket  as  much  at  night  as  the  whole  of 
them  together.  Or  rather,  they  will  never  suffer 
institutions  to  exist  which  tolerate  such  unright 


eousness.  California,  therefore,  is  free  ;  as  free 
as  Massachusetts ;  and  Mr.  Clay  might  as  well 
have  said  in  terms,  that  whereas  Massachusetts 
is  free,  therefore  New  Mexico  and  Utah  shall 
be  slave,  or  run  the  hazard  of  being  so. 

The  next  point  of  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  is,  that 
Texas  shall  extend  her  southwestern  boundary 
from  or  near  the  Nueces  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and 
shall  receive,  probably,  some  six  or  eight  millions 
of  dollars  for  withdrawing  her  claim  to  that  part 
of  New  Mexico  which  lies  east  of  the  last-named 
river-  Now,  Texas  has  no  rightful  or  plausible 
claim  to  a  foot  of  all  this  territory.  But  suppose 
it  to  be  a  subject  of  doubt,  and  therefore  of  com 
promise.  The  mutuality,  then,  consists  in  divid 
ing  the  whole  territory  claimed  by  Texas,  and 
then  giving  her  a  valid  title  to  one  portion  of  it, 
and  paying  her  for  all  the  rest.  Texas,  or, — what 
in  this  connection  is  the  same  thing, — slavery, 
surrenders  absolutely  nothing,  gets  a  good  title 
to  some  seventy  thousand  sqnare  miles  of  terri 
tory,  and  pay  for  as  much  more ! 

But  what  renders  it  almost  incredible  that  any 
man  could  soberly  submit  such  a  proposition  and 
dare  to  call  it  a  compromise,  is  this :  All  that  part 
of  New  Mexico  which  Texas  cl-dms,  and  which 
lies  between  the  parallels  of  36°  30'  and  42°,  is, 
by  the  Resolutions  of  Annexation,  to  be  forever 
free.  I  shall  consider  the  constitutionality  of 
these  resolutions  by  and  by  ;  I  now  treat  them  as 
valid.  Now  the  compromise  proposes  to  bay  this 
territory,  so  secured  to  freedom,  and  annex  it  to 
New  Mexico,  which  is  to  be  left  open  to  slavery. 
We  are  to  peril  all  the  broad  region  between 
36°  30'  and  42°,  and  pay  Texas  some  six  or  eight 
millions  of  dollars  for  the  privilege  of  doing  so  ! 
Mr.  Clay  is  not  less  eminent  for  his  statesmanship 
than  for  his  waggery.  Were  he  to  succeed  in 
playing  off  this  practical  joke  upon  the  North, 
and  were  it  not  for  the  horrible  consequences 
which  it  would  involve,  a  roar  of  laughter,  like  a 
feu  dejoie,  would  run  down  the  course  of  the  ages. 
As  it  is,  the  laughter  will  be  "  Elsewhere." 

The  next  point  pertains  to  the  abolition  of 
the  slave  trade,  and  the  perpetuity  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  This  District  has  an 
area  of  about  fifty  square  miles;  and  Mr.  Clay 
proposes,  in  consideration  of  transferring  its  slave 
marts  to  Alexandria,  on  the  Virginia  side,  or  to 
some  convenient  place  in  Montgomery  or  Prince 
George's  county,  on  the  Maryland  side,  to  divest 
Congress  forever  of  its  right  of  "  exclusive  legis 
lation"  over  it.  Should  this  plan  prevail,  the 
perpetuity  of  slavery  in  the  District  will  be  de 
fended  by  more  unassailable  and  impregnable 
barriers  than  any  other  institution  in  Christen 
dom.  The  President  has  a  veto  upon  Congress; 
but  two-thirds  of  both  houees  may  still  pass  any 
law,  notwithstanding  his  dissent.  Mr.  Clay  pro 
poses  to  give,  both  to  Maryland  and  to  the  citi 
zens  of  the  District,  a  veto  on  this  subject ; — an 
absolute  veto,  not  a  qualified  one,  like  that  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  but  one  that  will 
control,  not  majorities  merely,  but  an  absolute 
unanimity  in  both  branches  of  Congress.  By  his 
plan,  therefore,  three  separate,  independent  pow 
ers  are  to  have  a  veto  upon  the  abolition  of  sla 
very  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  And  not  only 


io,  but  while  it  will  require  their  joint  or  concur- 
•ent  action  to  abolish  the  institution,  any  one  of 
hem  can  preserve  it.  The  laws  of  the  Medes 
ind  Persians  had  no  such  guaranties  for  perpetu- 
ty  as  this. 

Mr.  Clay's  last  point  is  really  too  facetious.  So 
solemn  a  subject  does  not  permit  suchlong-contin- 
led  levity,  however  it  may  be  masked  by  sobriety 

countenance.  It  is  that  Congress  shall  make 
mere  effectual  provision  for  the  capture  and  de 
livery  of  fugitive  slaves ;  and,  as  an  equivalent 
for  this,  it  shall  bind  itself  never  to  interfere 
with  the  inter-State  traffic  in  slaves.  We  are 
to  catch  their  slaves,  and,  as  though  that  were  a 
grateful  privilege  to  us,  we  are  to  allow  them  free 
ommerce  in  slaves,  coastwise  or  inland.  By  this 
means,  slaves  can  be  transported  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Rio  Grande,  and  some  hundreds  of  miles  up 
ihat  river,  towards  New  Mexico,  instead  of  being 
driven  in  coffles  across  the  country.  The  com 
promise  is,  that  for  every  slave  we  catch,  we  are 
to  facilitate  the  passage  of  a  hundred  into  New 
Mexico. 

Such  is  the  mutuality  of  Mr.  Clay's  compro 
mises.  They  are  such  compromises  as  the  wolf 
offers  to  the  lamb,  or  the  vulture  to  the  dove. 
They  make  the  rightful  admission  of  California 
into  the  Union,  with  her  free  Constitution,  con 
tingent  upon  opening  the  new  Territories  to  sla 
very  ;  they  ratify  one  part  of  the  predatory 
claim  of  Texas,  and  propose  to  give  her  millions 
for  the  other  part ;  they  give  an  unconditional 
veto  to  the  State  of  Maryland  and  to  the  citizens 
of  the  District  of  Columbia,  over  a  unanimous 
vote  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  even  when  ap 
proved  by  the  President ;  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Butler's  bill  and  Mr.  Mason's  amendments, 
they  expose  our  white  citizens  to  grievous  penal 
ties  and  imprisonments  for  not  doing  what  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided 
we  are  not  bound  to  do,  in  relation  to  fugitive 
slaves,  and  they  offer  our  colored  citizens  to  be 
kidnapped  and  spirited  away  into  bondage  ;  and 
they  foreclose,  in  favor  of  the  South,  the  disputed 
question  of  the  inter-State  commerce  in  slaves. 
In  one  particular  only  do  they  appear  to  concede 
anything  to  Northern  rights,  or  Northern  convic 
tions,  or  Northern  feelings.  They  propose  to 
transfer  the  District  of  Columbia  slave  trade 
across  an  ideal  line  into  Virginia  or  into  Mary 
land,  so  that  the  slave  planter  or  slave  trader, 
when  he  comes  to  our  American  Congo  to  replen 
ish  his  stock  of  human  cattle,  shall  be  obliged  to 
go  a  mile  or  two,  to  the  slave  marts,  instead  of 
walking  down  Pennsylvania  avenue.  I  deem  this 
to  be  no  concession.  If  it  is  honorable  to  produce 
corn  and  cotton,  it  is  honorable  to  buy  and 
sell  them, — and  if  it  is  honorable  to  hold  beings 
created  in  God's  image  in  slavery,  it  is  honora 
ble  to  stand  between  the  producer  and  consumer, 
and  to  make  merchandise  of  the  bodies  and  the 
Isouls  of  men.  Let  this  Light  of  the  Age  be  set 
upon  a  hill  that  all  nations  may  behold  it. 

I  will  refer  to  Mr.  Bell's  resolutions  no  further 
than  to  say  that  they  propose  the  formation  of 
three  slave  States  out  of  what  is  now  claimed  by 
Texas,  one  of  which  is  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  forthwith  as  an  offset  to  California. 


Mr.  Buchanan  has  not  regarded  the  movemenis 
of  his  rival,  General  Case,  with  indifference.  He 
has  spent  a  9onsiderable  portion  of  the  winter  in 
Washington,  and  it  is  understood  that  he  holds 
out  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  from  the 
western  boundary  of  Missouri  to  the  Pacific 
ocean,  as  his  lure  to  the  South,  for  their  favora 
ble  regards  in  the  ensuing  Presidential  contest. 

In  a  chronological  order,  I  must  now  consider 
some  vitally  important  views,  which  have  been 
submitted  by  some  members  in  the  House,  and  by 
Mr.  Webster  and  others  in  the  Senate.  In  men 
tioning  the  name  of  this  great  statesman,  and 
in  avowing  that  I  am  one  among  the  many  whom 
his  recently  expressed  opinions  have  failed  to 
convince,  it  is  due  to  myself,  however  indifferent 
it  may  be  to  him  or  to  his  friends,  that  I  should 
express  my  admiration  of  his  powers,  my  grati 
tude  for  his  past  services,  and  the  diffidence  with 
which  I  dissented,  at  first,  from  his  views.  But  I 
have  pondered  upon  them  long,  and  the  longer  I 
have  pondered,  the  more  questionable  they  appear. 
I  shall  therefore  venture  upon  the  perilous  task  of 
inquiring  into  their  correctness  ;  and  while  I  do 
it  with  the  deference  and  respect  which  belong  to 
his  character,  I  shall  do  it  also  with  that  fidelity 
to  conscience  and  to  judgment  that  belong  to 
mine.  He  is  great,  but  truth  is  greater  than  us 
all. 

I  shall  confine  myself  mainly,  and  perhaps 
wholly,  to  Mr.  Webster's  views,  because  he  has 
argued  the  cause  of  the  South  with  vastly  more 
ability  than  it  has  been  argued  by  any  one  among 
themselves.  If  his  conclusions,  then,  be  not  tena 
ble,  their  case  is  lost* 

Mr.  Webster  casts  away  the  "  Proviso  "  alto 
gether.  He  says  :  "  If  a  resolution  or  a  law  were 
now  before,  us  to  provide  a  Territorial  Government  for 
New  Mexico,  I  would  not  vote  to  put  any  prohibition 
into  it  whatever." — Page  44.  The  reason  given  is, 
that  slavery  is  already  excluded  from  "  Califor 
nia  and  New  Mexico  "  "  by  the  law  of  nature,  of 
physical  geography,  the  law  of  the  formation  of 
the  earth." — Page  42.  "  California  and  New 
Mexico  are  Asiatic  in  their  formation  and  scenery. 
They  are  composed  of  vast  ridges  of  mountains  of 
enormous  height,  with  broken  ridges  and  deep 
valleys."— Page  43. 

Now,  this  is  drawing  moral  conclusions  from 
physical  premises.  It  is  arguing  from  physics 
to  metaphysics.  It  is  determining  the  law  of  the 
spirit  by  geographical  phenomena.  It  is  under 
taking  to  settle  by  mountains  and  rivers,  and  not 
by  the  Ten  Commandments,  a  great  question  of 
human  duty.  It  abandons  the  second  command 
ment  of  Christ  and  all  Bills  of  Rights  enacted  in 
conformity  thereto,  and  leaves  our  obligations  to 
our  "neighbor"  to  be  determined  by  the  accidents 
of  earth  and  water  and  air.  To  ascertain  wheth 
er  a  people  will  obey  the  Divine  command,  and 
do  to  others  as  they  would  be  done  by,  it  looks  at 
the  thermometer.  What  a  problem  would  this 
be?  "  Required  the  height  above  the  level  of  the 

*  All  my  quotations  from  Mr  Webster  are  taken  from 
the  edition  of  his  speech  which  he  dedicated  to  the  "  PEO 
PLE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,"  March  18,  1850.  Among  the 
numerous  readings  which  ha^e  appeared,  1  suppose  this  to 
be  the  most  authentic. 


6 


sea  at  which  the  oppressor  '  will  undo  the  heavy 
burdens  and  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and  break 
every  yoke,' — to  be  determined  barometrically." 
Alas !  this  cannot  be  done.  Slavery  depends,  not 
upon  Climate,  but  upon  Conscience.  Wherever 
the  wicked  passions  of  the  human  heart  can  go, 
there  slavery  can  go.  Slavery  is  an  effect.  Av 
arice,  sloth,  pride,  and  the  love  of  domination,  are 
its  cause.  In  ascending  mountain  sides,  at  what 
altitude  do  men  leave  these  passions  behind  them  ? 
Different  vegetable  growths  are  to  be  found  at 
different  heights,  depending  also  upon  the  zone. 
This  I  can  understand.  There  is  the  altitude  of 
the  palm,  the  altitude  of  the  oak,  the  altitude  of 
the  pine,  and,  far  above  them  all,  the  line  of  per 
petual  snow.  But,  in  regard  to  innocence  and 
guilt,  where  is  the  white  line?  How  high  up  can 
a  slaveholder  go  and  not  lose  his  free  agency  ? 
At  what  elevation  will  the  whip  fall  from  the 
hand  of  the  master,  and  the  fetter  from  the  limbs 
of  the  slave  ?  There  is  no  such  point.  Freedom 
and  slavery  on  the  one  hand,  and  climate  and  ge 
ology  on  the  other,  are  incommensurable  quanti 
ties.  We  might  as  well  attempt  to  determine  a 
question  in  theology  by  the  cube  root,  or  a  ques 
tion  in  ethics  by  the  Black  Art.  Slavery  being  a 
crime  founded  upon  human  passions  can  go  wher 
ever  those  passions  are  unrestrained.  It  has  ex 
isted  in  Asia  from  the  earliest  ages,  notwithstand 
ing  its  "  formation  and  scenery."  It  labors  and 
groans  on  the  flanks  of  the  Ural  mountains  now. 
There  are  to-day  forty-eight  millions  of  slaves  in 
Russia,  not  one  rood  of  which  comes  down  so 
low  as  the  northern  boundary  of  California  and 
New  Mexico. 

Had  Mr.  Webster's  philosophy  bee  a  correct, 
then  California  was  at  superfluous  pains  when 
she  incorporated  the  Ordinance  of  1787  into  her 
Constitution.  Instead  of  saying  that  "slavery 
and  involuntary  servitude,  (except  for  crime.) 
shall  be  forever  prohibited,"  she  should  have  said, 
"  Whereas  by  a  law  of  nature,  of  physical  geog 
raphy,  the  law  of  the  forma' ion  of  the  earth," 
"  slavery  cannot  exist  in  California,"  therefore  we 
will  not "  re-affirm  an  ordinance  of  Nature,  nor  re- 
enact  the  will  of  God." 

Should  it  be  said  that  slavery  will  not  go  into 
the  new  Territories,  because  it  is  unprofitable,  I 
ask,  where  is  it  profitable  ?  Where  is  ignorance 
ao  profitable  as  knowledge  ?  Where  is  ungodli 
ness  gain,  even  for  the  things  of  this  life  ?  How 
little  is  the  hand  worth  at  one  end  of  an  arm,  if 
there  is  not  a  brain  at  the  other  ?  Do  not  Mary 
land,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  other  States, 
furnish  witnesses  by  thousands  and  tens  of  thou 
sands  that  slavery  impoverishes  ?  Yet  with  what 
enthusiasm  they  cherish  it.  Generally,  igno 
rance  is  a  necessary  concomitant  of  slavery.  Of 
white  persons,  over  twenty  years  of  age,  unable 
to  read  and  write,  there  were,  according  to  the 
last  census,  58,787  in  Virginia,  56,609  in  North 
Carolina,  58  513  in  Tennessee,  and  so  forth.  I 
have  a  letter  before  me,  received  this  morning, 
dated  in  Indiana,  in  which  the  writer  says  he  re 
moved  from  North  Carolina,  in  1802;  when  he 
was  fourteen  years  old,  and  at  that  time  he  had 
never  seen  a  newspaper  in  his  life.  Can  there  be 
genius,  the  inventive  talent,  or  profitable  labor, 


where  ignorance  is  so  dense  1  Can  the  oppres 
sion  that  tramples  out  voluntary  industry,  intel 
ligence,  enterprise,  and  the  desire  of  independ 
ence,  conduce  to  riches?  Yet  this  is  done  wher 
ever  slavery  exists,  and  is  part  and  parcel  of  its 
working.  Is  any  other  form  of  robbery  profitable  ? 
Yet  individuals  and  communities  have  practiced 
it  and  lived  by  it,  and  we  may  as  well  rely  upon  a 
"  law  of  physical  geography  "  to  arrest  the  one  at 
the  other.  It  is  not  poetry,  but  literal  truth,  thaa 
the  breath  of  the  slave  blasts  vegetation,  his  tears 
poison  the  earth,  and  his  groans  strike  it  with 
sterility.  It  would  be  easy  to  show  why  the  mas 
ter  does  not  abandon  slavery,  even  amid  the  deso 
lation  with  which  it  has  surrounded  him.  There 
is  a  combination  of  poverty  and  pride,  which  sla 
very  produces,  on  the  doctrine  of  natural  appetence^ 
and  which,  therefore,  it  exactly  fits.  The  help 
lessness  of  the  master  in  regard  to  all  personal 
wants  seems  to  necessitate  the  slavery  that  has 
begotten  it.  All  moral  and  religious  principles 
are  lowered  till  they  conform  to  the  daily  prac 
tice.  Custom  blinds  conscience,  until,  without 
any  attempt  to  emancipate  or  ameliorate  their 
victims,  men  can  preach  and  pray  and  hold  slaves, 
as  Hamlet's  grave-digger  jests  and  sings  while  he 
turns  up  skulls. 

But  slavery  cannot  go  into  California  or  New 
Mexico,  because  their  staple  productions  are  not 
"  tobacco,  corn,  cotton,  or  rice." — Page  44.  These 
are  agricultural  products.  But  is  slave  labor 
confined  to  agriculture?  Suppose  that  predial 
slavery  will  not  become  common  in  the  new  Ter 
ritories.  Cannot  menial?  If  slaves  cannot  do 
field-work,  cannot  they  do  house-work  ?  There 
is  an  opening  for  a  hundred  thousand  slaves  to 
day  in  the  new  Territories,  for  purposes  of  domes 
tic  labor.  And  beyond  this,  let  me  ask,  who  possess 
es  any  such  geologic  vision  that,  at  a  distance  of  a 
thousand  miles,  he  can  penetrate  the  valleys  and 
gorges  of  New  Mexico,  and  say  that  gold  will 
not  yet  be  found  there  as  it  is  in  California. — not 
in  sand  and  gravel  only,  but  in  forty-eight  pound 
ers  and  in  fifty-sixes  ?  This  is  the  very  kind  of 
labor  on  which  slaves,  in  all  time,  have  been  so 
extensively  employed, — the  very  labor  on  which  a 
million  of  slaves  in  Hispaniola  lost  their  lives, 
within  a  few  years  after  its  discovery  by  Colum 
bus.  Gold  deposites  are  now  worked  within  twenty- 
five  miles  of  Santa  Fe.  The  last  account  which 
I  have  seen,  of  a  company  of  emigrants  passing 
from  Santa  Fe  to  California  by  the  river  Gila, 
announces  rich  discoveries  of  gold  upon  that 
river.  A  fellow-citizen  of  mine  has  just  returned 
home,  who  says  he  saw  a  slave  sold  at  the  mines 
in  California,  in  September  last.  As  yet,  the 
distant  regions  of  the  Gila  and  the  Colorado  can 
not  be  worked,  because  of  the  Apaches,  the  Utahs, 
and  other  tribes  of  Indians.  But  admit  slavery 
there,  and  the  power  of  the  Government  will  be 
invoked  to  exterminate  these  Indians,  as  it  wast 
before  to  exterminate  the  Cherokees  and  Semi-1 
noles, — not  to  drive  them  beyond  the  Mississippi, 
but  beyond  the  Styx.  A  few  days  since  a  letter 
was  published  in  the  papers,  dated  on  board  a 
steamer  descending  the  Mississippi,  which  stated 
that  a  considerable  number  of  slaves  were  on 
board,  bound  for  California,  under  an  agreement 


with  their  masters  that  they  should  be  free  after 
serving  two  years  at  the  mines.  We  know,  too, 
that  the  reason  assigned  for  incorporating  a  pro 
vision  in  the  Constitution  of  California,  author 
izing  its  Legislature  to  pass  laws  for  the  exclu 
sion  of  free  blacks  from  the  State,  was,  that  slaves 
would  be  brought  there  under  this  very  form  of 
agreement,  and,  by  and  by,  the  country  would  be 
overspread  by  people  of  color  who  had  bought 
their  freedom.  The  sagacious  men  who  framed 
the  California  Constitution  came  from  all  parts 
of  the  territory,  and,  being  collected  on  the  spot, 
having  surveyed  all  its  mountains,  having  breath 
ed  its  air  at  all  temperatures,  and  turned  up  its 
golden  soil, — these  men  had  never  discovered  any 
"law  of  physical  geography"  which  the  fell 
spirit  of  slavery  could  not  transgress.  Slaves 
were  carried  into  Oregon,  ten  degrees  of  latitude 
higher  up.  Its  colonists  reenacted  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  before  Congress  gave  them  a  Territorial 
Government.  In  the  Territorial  Government 
that  was  given  them,  the  prohibition  was  inserted  ; 
and  President  Polk  signed  the  bill,  with  an  ex 
press  protest,  that  he  ratified  this  exclusion  of 
slavery  only  because  the  country  lay  north  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line;  but  declared  that, 
had  it  embraced  the  very  region  in  question,  he 
would  have  vetoed  the  bill. 

General  Cass  never  took  the  ground  that  sla 
very  could  not  exist  in  the  new  territories ;  and  no 
inconsiderable  part  of  the  opposition  made  to 
him  in  Massachusetts  and  in  other  free  States, 
was  placed  expressly  upon  the  ground  that  he 
would  not  prohibit  it.  Mr.  Webster,  in  his 
Marshfield  speech,  Sept.  1,  1848,  opposed  the 
election  of  General  Cass,  because,  through  his 
recreancy  to  Northern  principles,  slavery  would 
invade  the  territories.  This  was  expressed  with 
his  usual  clearness  and  force,  as  follows  : 

"He,  [General  Cass.]  will  surely  have  the  Sen 
ate;  and  with  the  patronage  of  the  Government, 
with  every  interest  that  he,  as  a  Northern  man, 
can  briug  to  bear,  cooperating  with  every  inter 
est  that  the  South  can  bring  to  bear,  we  cry 
safety  before  we  are  out  of  the  woods,  if  ne  feel 
that  there  is  no  danger  as  to  these  new  territories?''* 

*  On  ths  eleventh  of  June  last,  General  Cass,  in  the  Senate, 
referred  to  this  notice  of  himself.  He  affirmed  that  he  had 
taken  the  ground,  in  his  "Nicholson"  Letter,  "  that  slavery 
could  not  exist  in  the  new  Territo-ies  ;  "  but  with  his  usual 
fatality  of  self-contradiction,  he  proceeded  to  read  some  pas 
sages  which  confirmed  the  truth  of  my  statement,  and  con- 
yicted  himself.  Everybody  knows  that  all  the  great  parties 
in  the  country  entertained  the  same  opinion  respecting  Gen. 
Cass *s  views  that  I  did;  for  he  was  opposed  at  the  North  and 
advocated  at  the  South,  on  the  express  ground  that  he  would 
allow  slavery  to  go  into  the  new  Territories.  Nobody  had 
then  heard  of  any  insuperable  barriers  erected  by  God  and 
Nature  against  the  encroachments  of  slavery  in  that  direc 
tion.  That  fable  had  not  then  been  invented. 

In  General  Cass's  reference  to  me,  in  the  above-mentioned 
speech,  there  are  many  curious  things.  He  arraigns  me  for 
referring  to  him ;  but  he  remembers  to  forget,  that  in  a  long 
parvum  in  multo  speech  which  he  made  last  January,  he  first 
assailed  me.  He  puts  on  a  sanctimonious  face,  and  reads  me 
a  lecture  for  citing  the  Scriptures;  while,  in  the  very  speech 
which  contains  the  censure,  he  cites  the  Scriptures  six  times, 
in  the  same  way  as  I  did  once.  Is  there  any  canon  of  the 
Church  which  forbids  my  referring  to  the  Scripture,  but  al 
lows  it  to  a  seeker  for  the  Presidency  1 

But  his  theological  knowledge  is  the  most  extraordinary, 
fn  referring  to  the  ninth  Commandment,  about  bearing  false 
witness  against  one's  neighbor,  he  came  only  within  six  of  it; 


Yet  Mr.  Webster  now  says  that  to  support  the 
"  Proviso,"  would  "  do  disgrace  to  his  own  un 
derstanding." — Page  46. 

During  the  same  campaign,  also,  the  Honorable 
Rufus  Choate,  one  of  the  most  eloquent  men  in 

for  he  called  it  the  "  third."  I  hope,  for  the  credit  of  the 
country,  some  friend  will  help  him  to  correct  this  before  it- 
goes  into  our  documentary  history ;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  I 
commend  him  to  the  Sunday  School  Society. 

But  the  General  nowhere  explains  his  own  sad  political 
condition.  In  his  little-in-much  speech  delivered  in  January 
Lest,  he  most  solemnly  maintained  that  Congress  had  no 
power  under  the  Constitution  to  legislate  fur  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Territories.  Yet,  during  the  great  part  of  his  political 
life,  he  was  the  mere  creature  of  such  legislation.  As  such, 
he  filled  offices,  which,  according  to  the  doctrines  of  that 
speech,  were  usurpations,  received  salaries,  which  were  em 
bezzlements,  and  took  oaths  to  support  the  Constitution, 
which  were  little  better  than  perjuries  But  since  the  speech 
of  January  was  made,  in  which  he  dtnied  all  power  in  Con 
gress  to  legislate  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories,  and 
affirmed  this  right  to  be  in  the  inhabitants  themselves,  he 
has  ascepted  a  place  on  the  Compromise  Committee,  and 
joined  in  the  Compromise  report,  by  which,  according  to  his 
own  doctrine,  he  usurps  this  power  of  legislation,  and  robs 
the  Territorial  inhabitants  of  what  he  hau  so  lately  averied 
to  be  their  natural  right.  The  bill,  however,  confers  a  lim 
ited  and  quasi  power  of  legislation  on  the  inhabitants  ;  yet, 
on  the  most  important  of  all  subjects,  the  subject  of  slavery, 
it  denies  them  all  power,  and  fetters  them  immovably. 

This,  then,  is  General  Cass's  course  on  this  subject.  He 
denied  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  for  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Territories,  so  that  he  might  please  the  South  by 
voting  against,  or  vetoing  the  Proviso,  and  thus  allow  the 
extension  of  slavery.  But  when,  in  the  course  of  events,  it 
was  apprehended  that  the  Territories  would  of  themselves 
exclude  slavery,  if  allowed  to  do  what  he  said  they  had  a 
natural,  inherent  right  to  do,  then  he  denies  his  denial  by 
going  for  a  Compromise  Committee  and  for  the  Compromise 
bill.  But  thirdly,  lest  the  Territories,  if  invested  with  the 
common  power  of  legislating  for  themselves  in  their  domes 
tic  concerns,  should  of  themselees  prohibit  slavery,  he  denies 
his  denied  denial,  and  takes  this  chiefest  prerogative  of  free 
men  out  of  their  hands. 

In  his  last  speech,  General  Cass  deems  it  not  unworthy  his 
Senatorial  dignity  to  pun  upon  my  name.  A  pun  has  been 
called  "  the  smallest  kind  of  wit,"  and  I  think  the  General 
has  here  produced  the  smallest  specimens  of  the  "smallest 
kind."  l>id  it  not  occur  to  the  General  that  his  own  name 
offers  the  most  grievous  temptation  for  punning  ? 

As  a  general  rule,  I  contemn  punning  As  a  malignant 
attack  upon  any  gentleman  for  the  accident  of  his  name,  it  is 
wholly  unpardonable  It  is  but  barely  just'fiable  as  a  retort. 
To  warn  the  General  of  the  dangers  he  encounters  by  in 
dulging  his  love  of  puuning  I  will  venture  to  subjoin  a  speci 
men  or  two,  of  what  night  be  easily  and  indefinitely  extend 
ed  : 

1.   PHILOLOGICALLY. 

Small  odds,  'twixt  tweedle  dum  and  tweedle-dee, 
And  CASS  means  much  the  same,  without  the  C. 

2.   NUMERICALLY. 

This  Ass  is  very  big.    Then  call  him  CAss  ; 
C's  Roman  for  100;— a  hundred  times  an  ABS. 

3.    CHEMICALLY. 

The  prophet  boldly  saith,  "  All  flesh  is  grass ;  " 
'     But  thistle-eating  donkey's  flesh  is  Cass  ;— 

Cass  is  a  Carbonate  whose  base  is  Ass. 
While  General  Cass  held  Territorial  offices,  he  became  re 
nowned  for  the  enormous  quantities  of  rations  he  consumed. 
I  have  forgotten  whether  the  number  was  such  as  to  be  rep 
resented  by  the  Roman  numeral  L  or  C,— the  initial  of  his 
first  or  of  his  last  name.  If  the  latter,  it  would  suggest  the 
following : 

4.   GASTRONOMICALLY. 
Greedier  than  he  that  starved  'twixt  stacks  of  hay,— 

An  honest  ass ; 
Our  Jack  devours  C  rations  every  day  : 

Hence  y-clept  CAss. 

I  might  thus  carry  the  General  through  all  the  arts  and 
scienc  s;  but  if  he  is  now  disposed  to  say  "  quits,"  on  tbe 
score  of  punning,  I  am;  and  will  draw  no  more  upon  the 
asinine  or  Cassinine  associations  which  his  name  suggests.. 


8 


New  England,  and  known  to  be  the  personal 
friend  of  Mr.  Webster,  delivered  a  speech  at  Sa 
lem,  in  which  the  following  passage  occurs : 

"It  is  the  passage  of  a  law  to  say  that  Califor 
nia  and  New  Mexico  shall  remain  forever  free. 
That  is,  fellow-citizens,  undoubtedly  an  object  of 
great  and  transcendent  importance ;  for  there  is 
none  who  will  deny  that  we  should  go  up  to  the 
very  limits  of  the  Constitution  itself,  and  with 
the  wisdom  of  the  wisest,  and  zeal  of  the  most 
zealous,  should  unite  to  accomplish  this  great  ob 
ject,  and  to  defeat  the  always  detested,  and  for 
ever  to  be  detested  object  of  the  dark  ambition  of 
that  candidate  of  the  Baltimore  Convention,  who 
has  ventured  to  pledge  himself  in  advance  that 
he  will  veto  the  future  law  of  freedom ;  and  may 
God  avert  the  madness  of  all  those  who  hate  sla 
very  and  love  freedom,  that  would  unite  in  put 
ting  him  in  the  place  where  his  thrice  accursed 
pledge  may  be  redeemed !  *  *  *  *  Is  there 
a  Whig  upon  this  floor  who  doubts  that  the 
strength  of  the  Whig  party  next  March  will  in 
sure  freedom  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  if 
by  the  Constitution  they  are  entitled  to  freedom 
at  all?  Is  there  a  member  of  Congress  that 
would  not  vote  for  freedom?  You  know  there 
is  not  one.  Did  not  every  Whig  member  of 
Congress  from  the  free  States  vote  at  the  last 
session  for  freedom  ?  You  know  that  every  man 
of  them  returned  home  covered  with  the  thanks 
of  his  constituents  for  that  vote.  Is  there  a  sin 
gle  Whig  constituency,  in  any  free  State  in  this 
country,  that  would  return  any  man  that  would 
not  vote  for  freedom  ?  Do  you  believe  that  Daniel 
Webster  himself  could  be  returned  if  there  was  the 
least  doubt  upon  the  question  ?  " 

Mr.  Choate  then  adds :  "  Upon  this  question 
alone,  we  always  differ  from  those  Whigs  of  the 
South  ;  and  on  that  one,  we  propose  simply  to  vote 
them  down."  Mr.  Webster  now  says  he  will  not 
join  in  voting  them  down. 

Under  such  circumstances  is  it  frivolous  or 
captious  to  ask  for  something  more  than  a  dog 
matic  assertion  that  slavery  cannot  impregnate 
these  new  regions,  and  cause  them  to  breed  mon 
sters  forever  ?  On  a  subject  of  such  infinite  im 
portance  I  cannot  be  satisfied  with  a  dictum ;  I 
want  a  demonstration.  I  cannot  accept  the 
prophecy  without  inquiring  what  spirit  inspired 
the  prophet.  As  a  revelation  from  heaven  it 
would  be  most  delightful ;  but,  as  it  conflicts  with 
all  human  experience,  it  requires  at  least  one  un 
doubted  miracle  to  attest  the  divinity  of  its  origin. 

According  to  the  last  census,  there  were  more 
than  eight  thousand  persons  of  African  blood  in 
Massachusetts.  Abolish  the  moral  and  religious 
convictions  of  our  people,  let  slavery  appear  to 
be  in  their  sight  not  only  lawful  and  creditable, 
but  desirable  as  a  badge  of  aristocratic  distinction, 
and  as  a  "political,  social,  moral  and  religious 
blessing,"  and  what  obstacle  would  prevent  these 
eight  thousand  persons  from  being  turned  into 
slaves,  oa  any  day,  by  the  easy,  cheap,  and  short 
hand  kidnapping  of  a  legislative  act  ?  Africans 
can  exist  here,  for  the  best  of  all  reasons, — they 
do  exist  here.  A  state  of  slavery  would  not  stop 
their  respiration,  nor  cause  them  to  vanish  "  into 
thin  air."  Think,  for  a  moment,  of  the  com 
plaints  we  constantly  hear  in  certain  circles,  of 


the  difficulty  and  vexatiousness  of  commanding 
domestic  service.  If  no  moral  or  religious  objec 
tion  existed  against  holding  slaves,  would  not 
many  of  those  respectable  and  opulent  gentlemen 
who  signed  the  letter  of  thanks  to  Mr.  Webster, 
and  hundreds  of  others  indeed,  instead  of  apply 
ing  to  intelligence  offices,  or  visiting  emigrant 
ships  for  domestics,  as  we  call  them,  go  at  once  to 
the  auction-room  and  buy  a  man  or  a  woman  with 
as  little  hesitancy  or  compunction  as  they  now 
send  to  Brighton  for  beeves,  or  go  to  Tattersall's 
for  a  horse  ?  If  the  cold  of  the  higher  latitudes 
checks  the  flow  of  African  blood,  or  benumbs  Af 
rican  limbs,  the  slaveholder  knows  very  well  that 
a  trifling  extra  expense  for  whips  will  make  up 
for  the  difference. 

But  suppose  a  doubt  could  be  reasonably  enter 
tained  about  the  invasion  of  the  new  territories 
by  slavery.  Even  suppose  the  ehances  to  prepon 
derate  against  it.  What  then?  Are  we  to  sub 
mit  a  question  of  human  liberty  over  vast  regions 
and  for  an  indefinite  extent  of  time,  to  the  deter 
mination  of  chance?  With  all  my  faculties  I 
say  No  !  Let  me  ask  any  man,  let  me  respect 
fully  ask  Mr.  Webster  himself,  if  it  were  his  own 
father  and  mother,  and  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
sons  and  daughters,  who  were  in  peril  of  such  a 
fate,  whether  he  would  abandon  them  to  chance, — 
even  to  a  favorable  chance.  Would  he  suffer 
their  fate  to  be  determined  by  dice  or  divinationr 
when  positive  prohibition  was  in  his  power  ? 
And  by  what  rule  of  Christian  morality,  or  even 
of  enlightened  heathen  morality,  can  we  deal  dif 
ferently  with  the  kindred  of  others  from  what  we 
would  with  our  own?  He  is  not  a  Christian 
whose  humanity  is  bounded  by  the  legal  degrees 
of  blood,  or  by  general  types  of  feature. 

But  Mr.  Webster  would  not  u taunt"  the 
South.  Neither  would  I.  I  would  not  taunt  any 
honorable  man,  much  less  a  criminal.  Still, 
when  the  most  precious  interests  of  humanity  are 
in  peril,  I  would  not  be  timid.  I  would  not  stop 
too  long  to  cull  lover's  phrases.  Standing  under 
the  eye  of  God,  in  the  forum  of  the  world  and 
before  the  august  tribunal  of  posterity,  when  the 
litigants  are  Freedom  and  Tyranny,  and  human 
happiness  and  human  misery  the  prize  they  con 
test,  it  should  happen  to  the  sworn  advocate  of 
Liberty,  as  Gluintilian  says  it  did  to  Isocrates, 
"  not  to  speak  and  to  plead,  but  to  thunder  and 
to  lighten."  Mr.  Webster  would  not  taunt  the 
South ;  and  yet  I  say  the  South  were  never  so 
insulted  before  as  he  has  insulted  them.  Com 
mon  scoffs,  jeers,  vilifications,  are  flattery  and 
sycophancy,  compared  with  the  indignities  he 
heaped  upon  them.  Look  at  the  facts.  The 
South  waged  war  with  Mexico  from  one  and  only 
one  motive  ;  for  one  and  only  one  object, — the  ex 
tension  of  slavery.  They  refused  peace  unless 
it  surrendered  territory.  That  territory  must 
be  south  of  the  abhorred  line  of  36°  30'.  The 
same  President  who  abandoned  the  broad  belt  of 
country  on  our  Northern  frontier,  from  49°  to 
54°  40',  to  which  we  had,  in  his  own  words,  "  an 
unquestionable  title,"  would  allow  no  prohibition 
of  slavery  to  be  imposed  upon  the  territory  which 
Mexico  ceded,  though  she  would  bury  it  a  foot 
deep  in  gold.  The  Proviso  had  been  resisted  in 
all  forms,  from  the  beginning.  Southern  Whigs 


voted  against  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  fore 
seeing  the  struggle  that  was  to  follow.  Despe 
rate  efforts  were  made  to  smuggle  in  an  unre 
stricted  territorial  government,  against  all  par 
liamentary  rule  and  all  constitutional  implication. 
The  whole  South,  as  one  man,  claimed  it  as  a 
"  describable,  weighable,  estimable,  tangible  "  and 
most  valuable  "right"  to  carry  slaves  there. 
Calhoun,  Berrien,  Badger,  Mason,  Davis, — the 
whole  Southern  phalanx,  Whig  and  Demo 
crat,  pleaded  for  it,  argued  for  it,  and  most  of 
them  declared  themselves  ready  to  fight  for  it ; 
and  yet  Mr.  Webster  rises  in  his  place,  and  tells 
them  they  are  all  moon-struck,  hallucinated, 
fatuous ;  because  "  an  ordinance  of  Nature  and 
the  will  of  God  "  had  settled  this  question  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world.  Mr.  Calhoun  said, 
immediately  after  this  speech,  Give  us  free  scope 
and  time  enough,  and  we  will  take  care  of  the 
rest. 

Mr.  Mason  said — 

"  We  have  heard  here  from  various  quarters, 
and  from  high  quarters,  and  repeated  on  all 
hands, — repeated  here  again  to-day  by  the  hon 
orable  Senator  from  Illinois,  [Mr.  Shields,]  that 
there  is  a  law  of  nature  which  excludes  the 
Southern  people  from  every  portion  of  the  State 
of  California.  I  know  of  no  such  law  of  nature, — 
none  whatever;  but  I  do  know  thecmtrary,  that 
if  California  had  been  organized  with  a  territo 
rial  form  of  government  only,  and  for  which,  at 
the  last  two  sessions  of  Congress,  she  has  obtained 
the  entire  Southern  vote,  the  people  of  the 
Southern  States  would  have  gone  there  freely, 
and  have  taken  their  slaves  there  in  great  numbers. 
They  would  have  done  so  because  the  value  of 
the  labor  of  that  class  would  have  been  aug 
mented  to  them  many  hundred  fold.  Why,  in 
the  debates  which  took  place  in  the  convention  in 
California  which  formed  the  Constitution,  and 
which  any  Senator  can  now  read  for  himself,  af 
ter  the  provision  excluding  slavery  was  agreed 
upon,  it  was  proposed  to  prohibit  the  African 
race  altogether,  free  as  well  as  bond.  A  debate 
arose  upon  it ;  and  the  ground  was  distinctly  ta 
ken,  as  shown  in  those  debates,  that  if  the  entire 
African  race  was  not  excluded,  their  labor  would 
be  found  so  valuable  that  the  owners  of  slaves 
would  bring  them  there,  even  though  slavery 
were  prohibited,  under  a  contract  to  manumit 
them  in  two  or  three  years.  And  it  required 
very  little  reasoning,  on  the  part  of  those  op 
posed  to  this  class  of  population,  to  show  that  the 
productiveness  of  their  labor  would  be  such  as 
to  ciuse  that  result.  An  estimate  was  gone  into 
with  reference  to  the  value  of  the  labor  of  this 
class  of  people,  showing  that  it  would  be  in 
creased  to  such  an  extent  in  the  mines  of  Cali 
fornia,  that  they  could  not  be  kept  out.  It  was 
agreed  that  the  labor  of  a  slave  in  any  one  of  the 
States  from  which  they  would  be  taken,  was  not 
worth  more  than  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  a  year,  and  that  in  California  it 
would  be  worth  from  four  to  six  thousand  dollars. 
They  would  work  themselves  free  in  one  or  two 
years,  and  thus  the  country  would  be  filled  by  a 
class  of  free  blacks,  and  their  former  owners 
have  an  excellent  bargain  in  taking  them  there." 


Yet  Mr. Webster  stands  up  before  all  this  array, 
and  says :  "  Gentlemen,  you  are  beside  yourselves. 
You  have  eaten  hellebore.  You  would  look  more 
in  character  should  you  put  on  the  '  cap  and  bells.7 
In  sober  sense,  in  seeing  his  object  clearly  and  in 
pursuing  it  directly,  Don  Gluixote  was  Doctor 
Franklin,  compared  with  you.  The  dog  in  the 
fable,  who  dropped  his  meat  to  snap  at  its  shadow, 
is  no  allegory  in  your  case.  I  see  two  classes 
around  me, — wise  m?n  and  fools  ;  you  do  not  be 
long  to  the  former.  The  Chancellor  who  keeps 
the  king's  idiots  should  have  custody  of  you." 
Such  is  a  faithful  abstract  of  what  Mr.  Webster 
said  to  Southern  Senators,  and,  through  them,  to 
all  the.  South. 

Here  certainly  was  a  reflection  upon  the  under 
standing  and  intelligence  of  the  South,  such  as 
never  was  cast  upon  them  before.  But  the  balm 
went  with  the  sting.  They  bore  the  affront  to 
their  judgments,  because  it  was  so  grateful  to 
their  politics  and  pockets.  I  think  it  no  injustice 
to  those  Senators  to  say,  that  they  would  have 
nearly  torn  Mr.  Webster  in  pieces  for  such  a 
collective  insult,  if  it  had  not  promised  to  add 
fifty  per  cent,  to  their  individual  property,  and  to 
secure  and  perpetuate  their  political  ascendency. 

To  help  our  conceptions  in  regard  to  Mr. Web 
ster's  course  on  this  subject,  let  us  imagine  a  par 
allel  case, — or,  rather,  an  approximate  one,  for 
there  can  be  no  parallel.  Suppose  a  contest  be 
tween  the  North  and  the  South,  on  the  subject  of 
the  Tariff,  to  have  been  raging  for  years.  The 
sober  blood  of  the  North  is  heated  to  the  fever 
point.  The  newspapers  treat  of  nothing  else. 
Public  meetings  and  private  conversations  discuss 
no  other  theme.  Hundreds  of  delegates  wait  upon 
Congress  to  add,  if  it  be  but  a  feather's  weight,  to 
the  scale  which  holds  their  interests.  Petitions 
flow  in  in  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands.  It  is 
announced  that  Mr.  Calhoun  will  pour  out  his 
great  mind  on  the  subject.  Expectation  is  on 
tiptoe.  All  eyes,  from  all  sides  of  the  country, 
are  turned  towards  Washington,  as  the  Muezzin's 
to  Mecca.  The  Senate  chamber  is  packed,  and 
the  illustrious  Senator  rises.  After  an  historic 
sketch  of  existing  difficulties,  after  reading  from 
the  speeches  which  he  made  in  1832  and  in  1846, 
he  proceeds  to  say  that  he  withdraws  all  opposi 
tion  to  a  tariff,— to  any  tariff !  He  will  not  offend 
the  delicate  nerves  of  Northern  manufacturers  by 
further  hostility.  Were  a  bill  then  before  him, 
he  would  not  oppose  it.  "  Take  the  schedules," 
says  he,  scornfully,  to  Northern  Senators,  "  and 
fill  up  the  blanks  from  A  to  Z  with  what  per 
centages  you  please.  For  ad  valorem  rates,  put 
in  minimums  and  maximums  at  your  pleasure. 
I  will  'taunt'  you  no  longer.  I  am  for  peace  and 
the  glorious  Union.  I  have  discovered  an  irre- 
pealable  and  irreversible  law  of  nature,  which 
overrules  all  the  devices  of  men.  You  cannot 
make  one  yard  of  woollens  or  cottons  in  New  Eng 
land.  There,  water  has  no  gravity,  steam  has  no 
force,  and  wheels  will  not  revolve.  In  Vermont 
and  New  York,  wool  will  not  grow  on  eheeps' 
backs.  I  have  penetrated  the  geology  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  through  all  its  stratifications,  there  is 
not  a  thimble-full  of  coal,  nor  an  ounce  of  iron 
ore;  and,  if  there  were,  combustion  would  not 


10 


help  to  forge  it ;  for  oxygen  and  carbon  are  di 
vorced.  As  Massachusetts  contributed  one-third 
of  the  men  and  one-third  of  the  money,  to  carry 
on  the  Revolutionary  War,  I  am  willing  to  com 
pensate  her  for  her  lost  blood  and  treasure,  to  the 
amount  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  "with 
which  she  may  fertilize  the  barrenness  of  her 
genius,  and  indulge  her  insane  love  for  churches 
and  schools."  Had  the  great  Southern  Senator 
spoken  thus,  I  think  that  even  idolatrous,  man- 
worshipping  South  Carolina, — a  State  which  Mr. 
Calhoun  has  ruled  and  moved  for  the  last  twenty- 
five  years,  as  a  puppet-showman  plays  Punch  and 
Judy, — would  have  sent  forth,  through  all  her 
organs,  a  voice  of  unanimous  dissent. 

As  much  as  Freedom  is  higher  than  Tariff,  so 
much  stronger  than  their  dissent  should  be 
ours. 

Mr.  Webster's  averment  that  he  would  not 
"re-affirm  an  ordinance  of  Nature,  nor  reenact 
the  will  of  God,"  [p.  44,]  has  been  commented  on 
more  pungently  than  I  am  able  or  willing  to  do. 
It  has  been  said  that  all  law  and  all  volition  must 
be  in  harmony  with  the  will  of  the  Good  Spirit 
or  with  that  of  the  Evil  One;  and  if  we  will  not 
reenuct  the  will  of  the  former,  then,  either  all 
legislation  ceases,  or  we  must  register  the  decrees 
of  the  latter.  But  one  important  and  pertinent 
consideration  belongs  to  this  subject,  which  I  have 
nowhere  seen  developed.  It  is  this:  Endless 
doubts  and  contradictions  exist  among  men,  as  to 
what  ia  the  will  of  God ;  and  on  no  subject  is 
there  a  wider  diversity  of  opinion  than  on  this 
very  subject  of  slavery.  Whose  law  was  reenacted 
by  the  Ordinance  of  1787?  whose,  when  the  Afri 
can  slave  trade  was  prohibited  ?  whose,  when  it 
was  declared  piracy  ?  True,  it  is  useless  to  put 
upon  our  statute-books  an  astronomical  law,  reg 
ulating  sunrise,  or  high  tides  ;  .but  that  is  physi 
cal  and  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  man,  while  sla 
very  belongs  to  morals,  and  is  within  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  man.  Cease  to  transcribe  upon  the  statute- 
book  what  our  wisest  and  best  men  believe  to  be 
the  will  of  God  in  regard  to  our  wordly  affairs, 
and  the  passions  which  we  think  appropriate  to 
devils  will  soon  take  possession  of  society.  In  re 
gard  to  slavery,  piracy,  and  so  forth,  there  are 
multitudes  of  men,  whose  fear  of  the  penal  sanc 
tions  of  another  life  is  very  much  aided  by  a  little 
salutary  fine  and  imprisonment  in  this.  Look  at 
that  noble  array  of  principles  which  is  contained 
in  the  Declaration  of  Rights  in  the  Constitution 
of  Massachusetts.  Is  it  not  a  most  grand  and 
beautiful  exposition  of  i:the  will  of  God," — a 
transcript,  as  it  were,  from  the  Book  of  Life?  So 
of  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Yet  our  fathers  thought  it  no 
tampering  with  holy  things  to  enact  them ;  and, 
in  times  of  struggle  and  peril,  they  have  been  to 
many  a  tempted  man  as  an  anchor  to  the  soul, 
sure  and  steadfast. 

I  approach  Mr.  Webster's  treatment  of  the 
Texas  question  with  no  ordinary  anxiety.  Hav 
ing  been  accustomed  from  my  very  boyhood  to 
regard  him  as  the  almost  infallible  expounder  of 
constitutional  law,  it  is  impossible  to  describe  the 
struggle,  the  revulsion  of  mind,  with  which  I  have 
passed  from  an  instructed  and  joyous  acquiescence 


in  his  former  opinions  to  unhesitating  dissent 
from  his  present  ones. 

I  must  premise  that  I  cannot  see  any  necessary 
or  beneficial  connection  between  the  subject  of 
new  Texan  States  and  the  admission  of  California 
and  the  government  of  the  Territories.  The  for 
mer  refers  to  some  indefinite  future,  when,  from 
its  fruitful  womb  of  slavery,  Texas  shall  seek  to 
cast  forth  an  untimely  birth.  In  this  excited  state 
of  the  country,  at  this  critical  juncture  of  our 
affairs,  when  there  is  sober  talk  of  massacring  a 
majority  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  their 
own  floor,  and  a  Senator,  instead  of  threatening 
to  hang  a  brother  Senator  on  the  highest  tree, 
provided  he  could  catch  him  in  his  own  State, 
now  draws  a  revolver  of  six  barrels  on  another 
brother  Senator,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  in 
mid-session  ;  at  such  a  time,  I  eay,  when,  however 
few  Abels  there  may  be  at  work  in  the  political 
field,  there  are  Cains  more  than  enough,  would  it 
not  have  been  well  to  have  acted  upon  the  precept, 
"  Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof?" 

As  the  basis  of  his  argument,  Mr.  Webster 
quotes  the  following  resolution: 

''New  States  of  convenient  size,  not  exceeding  four  in 
number,  in  addition  to  said  State  of  Texas,  and  having  suf 
ficient  population,  may  hereafter,  by  the  consent  of  the  said 
State,  be  formed  out  of  the  territory  thereof,  which  shall  be 
entitled  to  admission  under  (he  provisions  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  And  such  States  as  may  be  formed  out  of 
that  portion  of  said  territory  lying  south  of  36  deg.  30  min. 
north  latitude,  commonly  known  as  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  line,  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  the  people  of  each  State  asking  admission  may 
desire  ;  and  in  such  State  or  States  as  shall  be  formed  out  of 
said  territory  north  of  said  Missouri  Compromise  line,  sla 
very  or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for  crime)  shall  be 
prohibited." 

Note  here,  first,  that  only  "four  "  States  are  to 
be  admitted  in  "  addition  to  said  State  of  Texas ;" 
and  second,  that  "  such  State  or  States "  (in  the 
plural)  as  shall  be  formed  from  territory  north  of 
36°  30',  shall  be  free.  If  tmo,  or  only  one  free 
State  is  to  exist  on  the  north  side  of  the  line,  then 
how  many  will  be  left  for  the  south  side?  I  should 
expose  myself  to  ridicule  were  I  to  set  it  down 
arithmetically,  four  minus  one,  equal  to  three.  Yet 
Mr.  Webster  says  "the  guaranty  is,  that  new 
States  shall  be  made  out  of  it,  [the  Texan  territo 
ry,]  and  that  such  States  as  are  formed  out  of 
that  portion  of  Texas  lying  south  of  36°  30',  may 
coine  in  as  slave  States,  to  the  nwnil/er  O/FOUR,  in 
addition  to  the  State  then  in  existence,  and  ad 
mitted  at  that  time  by  these  resolutions."  —  Page 
29. 

Here  Mr.  Webster  gives  outright  to  the  South 
and  to  slavery,  one  more  State  than  was  contracted 
for, — assuming  the  contract  to  be  valid.  He  makes 
a  donation,  a  gratuity,  of  an  entire  slave  State, 
larger  than  many  a  European  principality.  He 
transfers  a  whole  State,  with  all  its  beating  hearts, 
present  and  future,  with  all  its  infinite  suscepti 
bilities  of  weal  and  woe,  from  the  side  of  freedom 
to  that  of  slavery,  in  the  leger-book  of  humanity. 
What  a  bridal  gift  for  the  harlot  of  bondage ! 

Was  not  the  bargain  hard  enough,  according  to 
its  terms?  Must  we  fulfil  it,  and  go  beyond  it? 
Is  a  slave  State,  which  dooms  our  brethren  of  the 
human  race,  perhaps  interminably,  to  the  vassal's 
fate,  so  insignificant  a  trifle,  that  it  may  be  flung 
in,  as  small  change  on  the  settlement  of  an  ac- 


11 


count?  Has  the  South  been  so  generous  a  co 
partner,  as  to  deserve  this  distinguished  token  of 
our  gratitude? 

Why,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  could  he  not  have 
claimed  all  the  four  States,  "  in  addition  to  said 
State  of  Texas,'7  as  free  States  ?  The  resolutions 
divide  the  territory  into  two  parts,  one  north  and 
one  south  of  the  line  of  36°  30'.  'Could  not  Mr. 
Webster  have  claimed  the  four  States  for  Freedom 
with  as  sound  logic,  and  with  far  better  humanity 
than  he  surrendered  them  to  Slavery  ?  When 
Texas  and  the  South  have  got  their  slave  States 
"to  the  number  of  four"  into  the  Union,  whence  are 
we  to  obtain  our  one  or  more  free  States?  The 
contract  will  have  been  executed,  and  the  consent 
of  Texas  for  another  State  will  be  withheld. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  Mr.  Webster  affirms 
the  right  of  slavery  to  four  more  States,  in  the 
following  words :  "  I  know  no  form  of  legislation 
which  can  strengthen  this.  1  know  no  mode  of 
recognition  that  can  add  a  tittle  of  weight  to  it." 
Catching  the  tone  of  his  asseveration,  I  respond 
that  I  know  no  form  of  statement,  nor  process  of 
reasoning,  which  can  make  it  more  clear,  that  this 
is  an  absolute  and  wanton  surrender  of  the  rights 
of  the  North  and  the  rights  of  humanity. 

But  I  hold  the  Texia  resolutions  to  have  been 
utterly  void ;  and  proceed  to  give  the  reasons  for 
my  opinion. 

I  begin  by  quoting  Mr.  Webster  against  himself. 
In  an  Address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
from  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Texas  State  Con 
vention,  January  29th,  1345,  the  subjoined  pas 
sage,  which  is  understood,  or  rather,  I  may  say,  is 
now  well  known,  to  have  been  dictated  by  Mr. 
Webster  himself,  may  be  found : 

"Bat  we  desire  not  to  be  misunderstood.  Ac 
cording  to  our  convictions,  there  is  no  power  in 
any  branch  of  the  Government,  or  all  its  branch 
es,  to  annex  foreign  territory  to  this  Union. 
We  have  made  the  foregoing  remarks  only  to 
show,  that,  if  any  fair  construction  could  show 
such  a  powsr  to  exist  anywhere,  or  to  be  exer 
cised  in  any  form,  yet  the  manner  of  its  exercise 
now  proposed  is  destitute  of  all  decent  semblance  of 
constitutional  propriety?'1 

Thus  cancelling  the  authority  of  Mr.  Webster 
in  1850  by  the  authority  of  Mr.  Webster  in  1845, 
I  proceed  with  the  argument. 

Though  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  in  pur 
suance  of  a  void  stipulation,  yet  it  is  a  clear  prin 
ciple  of  law  that  when  a  contract  void  between 
the  parties,  has  been  executed  by  them,  it  cannot 
then  be  annulled.  If  executed,  it  becomes  valid, 
not  by  virtue  of  the  contract,  but  by  vfrtue  of 
the  execution.  I  bow  to  this  legal  principle,  and 
would  fulfil  it.  But  any  independent  stipulation 
which  remains  unexecuted,  remains  invalid.  Such 
is  that  part  of  the  annexation  resolutions  which 
provides  for  the  admission  of  a  brood  of  Texan 
States.  The  resolutions  themselves  say,  in  ex 
press  terms,  that  the  new  States  are  to  be  admit 
ted  "under  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  Consti 
tution  5 "  and  the  Constitution  says,  "  New  States 
may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union." 
By  what  Congress  ?  Plainly,  by  the  Congress  in 
session  at  the  time  when  application  for  admission 
is  made ;  and  by  no  other.  The  fourth  Texan 


State  may  not  be  ready  for  admission  for  fifty 
years  to  come;  and  could  the  Congress  of  1845 
bind  the  Congress  of  1900?  The  Congress  of 
1900  and  all  future  Congresess,  will  derive  their 
authority  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  not  from  any  preceding  Congress. 
Put  the  case  in  a  negative  form.  Could,  the  Con 
gress  of  1845  bind  all  future  Congresses  not  to 
admit  new  States,  and  thus,  pro  tanto,  annul  the 
Constitution  ?  Positive  or  negative,  the  result  is 
the  same.  No  previous  Congress,  on  such  a  sub 
ject,  can  enlarge  or  limit  the  power  of  a  subse 
quent  one.  Whenever,  therefore,  the  question 
of  a  new  Texan  State  comes  up  for  consideration, 
the  Congress  then  in  being  must  decide  it  on  its 
own  merits,  untrammeled  by  anything  their  pre 
decessors  have  done ;  and,  especially,  free  from  a 
law  which,  while  similar  in  spirit,  is  a  thousand 
times  more  odious  in  principle  than  statutes  of 
mortmain. 

Admitting  that  a  future  Congress,  on  such  a 
subject,  might  be  boun*  by  a  treaty,  I  answer  that 
there  was  no  treaty  ;  while  the  fact  that  a  treaty 
clause  was  introduced  into  the  resolutions,  in  the 
Senate,  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  certain  votes 
that  would  never  otherwise  have  been  given  in 
their  favor,  and  under  an  express  pledge  from  the 
Executive  that  the  method  by  treaty  should  be 
adopted,  which  pledge  was  forthwith  iniquitously 
broken,  leaves  no  element  of  baseness  and  fraud 
by  which  this  proceeding  was  not  contaminated. 
In  the  name  of  the  Constitution,  then,  and  of 
justice,  let  every  honest  man  denounce  those  res 
olutions  as  void  alike  in  the  forum  of  law  and  in 
the  forum  of  conscience ;  and,  admitting  Texas 
herself  to  be  in  the  Union,  yet,  when  application 
is  made  for  any  new  State  from  that  territory,  let 
the  question  be  decided  upon  the  merits  it  may 
then  possess. 

And  was  not  Mr.  Webster  of  the  same  opinion, 
when,  in  Faneuil  Hall,  in  November,  1845,  after 
the  Resolutions  of  Annexation  had  passed,  he 
made  the  following  emphatic,  but  unprophetic, 
declaration : 

"  It  is  thought,  it  is  an  idea  I  do  not  say  how 
well  founded,  that  there  may  yet  be  a  hope  for 
resistance  to  the  consummation  of  the  act  of  annex 
ation.  I  can  only  say  for  one  that  if  it  should  fall 
to  my  lot  to  have  a  vote  on  such  a  question^  AND  I  VOTE 
FOR  THE  ADMISSION  INTO  THIS  UNION  OF  ANY 
STATE  WITH  A  CONSTITUTION  WHICH  PROHIBITS 
EVEN  THE  LEGISLATURE  FROM  EVER  SETTING  THE 
BONDMEN  FREE,  I  SHALL  NEVER  SHOW  MY 
HEAD  AGAIN,  DEPEND  UPON  IT,  IN 
FANEUIL  HALL." 

There  is  another  objection  to  any  future  claim 
of  Texas  to  be  divided  into  States,  which  grows 
out  of  her  own  neglect  to  fulfil  the  terms  and 
spirit  of  the  agreement.  In  the  "  territory  north 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  slavery  or  in 
voluntary  servitude,  (except  for  crime,)  shall  be 
prohibited."  So  reads  the  bond.  But  if  Texas 
suffers  slavery  to  be  extended  over  that  part  of 
her  territory,  then,  when  it  becomes  populous 
enough  for  admission,  and  is  overspread  with  sla 
very,  a  new  State  may  present  a  free  Constitu 
tion,  be  admitted  by  Congress,  and  before  the 
slaves  have  time  to  escape,  or  to  carry  the  ques- 


12 


tion  of  freedom  before  the  judicial  tribunals, 
Presto!  this  free  Constitution  will  be  changed 
into  a  slave  Constitution,  under  the  alleged  right 
of  a  State  to  decide  upon  its  own  domestic  insti 
tutions,  and  thus  the  word  of  promise  which  was 
kept  to  the  ear,  will  be  broken  to  the  hope.  If  Texas 
meant  to  abide  by  the  resolutions  of  annexation, 
and  to  claim  anything  under  them,  it  was  her 
clear  and  imperative  duty  forthwith  to  pass  a  law, 
securing  freedom  to  every  inhabitant  north  of 
the  Compromise  line.  In  this  way  only  can  the 
resolutions  be  executed  in  their  true  spirit.  That 
territory  is  now  in  the  condition  of  an  egg.  It  is 
undergoing  incubation.  From  it  a  State  is  here 
after  to  be  hatched ;  but  before  promising  to  ac 
cept  the  chick,  it  would  be  agreeable  to  know 
whether  a  viper  had  impregnated  the  egg. 

But  there  is  a  still  further  objection,  of  whose 
soundness  I  have  no  doubt ;  but  should  I  be  in 
error  in  regard  to  it,  the  mistake  will  not  inval 
idate  any  other  argument.  The  parties  to  that 
agreement  stipulated  on  the  ground  of  mutuality, 
without  which  all  contracts  are  void.  Some  States 
were  to  be  admitted  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  sla 
very,  and  some  of  freedom.  A  line  of  demarcation 
was  drawn.  Now,  on  investigation,  I  believe  it 
will  most  conclusively  appear  that  there  is  not 
an  inch  of  Texan  territory  north  of  the  stipulated 
line.  It  all  belongs  to  New  Mexico,  as  much  as 
Nantucket  or  Berkshire  belongs  to  Massachusetts. 
It  was  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  contracting 
parties ;  if,  on  the  part  of  Texas,  it  was  not  some 
thing  worse  than  a  mistake.  The  mutuality, 
then,  fails.  The  contract  is  nudum pactum.  Texas 
can  give  nothing  for  what  she  was  to  receive ;  and 
is,  therefore,  entitled  to  receive  nothing  but  what 
she  has  got. 

In  regard  to  "  the  business  of  seeing  that  fugi 
tives  are  delivered  up,"  Mr.  Webster  says :  "  My 
friend  at  the  head  of  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
[Mr.  Butler  of  South  Carolina,]  has  a  bill  on  the 
subject  now  before  the  Senate,  with  some  amend 
ments  to  it,  which  I  propose  to  support,  with  all 
its  provisions,  to  the  fullest  extent." 

Here  is  Mr.  Butler's  bill,  with  Mr.  Mason's 
amendments : 

A  BILL 

To  provide  for  the  more  effectual  execution  of  the  3d 
clause  of  the  2d  section  of  the  4th  article  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representat  VfS 
of  the  United  State*  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 
That  when  a  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  any  State  or 
Territory  of  the  United  States,  under  the  laws  of  eueh  Stfkte 
or  Territory,  shall  escape  into  any  other  of  the  said  States 
or  Territories,  the  person  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  is  hereby  empowered  to 
seize  or  arrest  such  fugitive  from  service  or  labor  and  take 
him  or  her  before  any  judge  cf  the  circuit  or  district  courts 
of  the  United  States,  or  before  any  commissioner,  or  clerk 
of  such  courts,  or  marshal  thereof,  or  any  postmaster  of  the 
United  States,  or  collector  of  the  customs  of  the  United 
States,  residing  or  being  within  such  State  wherein  such 
seizure  or  arrest  shall  be  made,  and  upon  proof  to  the  satis 
faction  of  such  judge,  commissioner,  clerk,  marshal,  post 
master,  or  collector,  as  the  ca«e  maybe,  either  by  oral  testi 
mony  or  affidavit  taken  before  and  certified  by  any  person 
authorized  to  administer  an  oath  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  any  State,  that  the  person  so  seized  or 
arrested,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  from 
which  he  or  she  fle^,  owe  service  or  labor  to  the  person 
claiming  him  or  her,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  judge,  com- 
mistioner,  clerk,  marshal,  postmaster,  or  c  Hector,  to  give  a 


certificate  thereof  to  such  claimant,  his  or  her  agent  or  at 
torney,  which  certificate  shall  b«  a  sufficient  warrant  for 
taking  and  removing  such  fugitive  from  service  or  labor  to 
the  State  or  Territory  from  which  he  rr  she  fled. 

SEC.  2.  And  be  it  farther  exacted,  That  when  a  person  held 
to  service  or  labor,  as  mentioned  in  the  first  section  of  this 
act,  shall  escape  from  such  service  or  labor,  as  therein  men 
tioned,  the  person  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be 
due,  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  may  apply  to  any  one  of 
the  officers  of  the  United  States  named  in  said  section,  other 
than  a  marshal  of  the  United  States,  for  a  warrant  to  seize 
and  arrest  such  fugitive,  and  upon  affidavit  being  made  be 
fore  such  officer,  (each  of  whom  for  the  purposes  of  this  act 
is  hereby  authorized  to  administer  an  oath  or  affirmation,) 
by  such  claimant:  his  or  her  agent,  that  such  person  does, 
under  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  from  which  he  or 
she  fled,  owe  service  or  lal-or  to  such  claimant,  it  shall  be, 
and  is  hereby  made,  the  duty  of  such  officer,  to  and  before 
whom  such  application  and  affidavit  is  made,  to  issue  his 
warrant  to  any  marshal  of  any  of  the  courts  of  the  United 
States  to  seize  and  arrest  such  alleged  fugitive,  and  to  bring 
him  or  her  forthwith,  or  on  a  day  to  be  named  in  such  war 
rant,  before  the  officer  issuing  such  warrant,  or  either  of  the 
officers  mentioned  in  said  first  section,  except  the  marshal  to 
Vhom  the  said  warrant  is  directed,  which  said  warrant  or 
authority  the  sail  marshal  is  hereby  authorized  and  direct 
ed  in  all  things  to  obey. 

SEC.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  upon  affidavit 
made  as  aforesaid  by  the  claimant  of  such  fugitive  his  agent 
or  attorney,  after  such  certificate  has  been  issued,  that  he 
has  reason  to  apprehend  that  such  fugitive  will  be  rescued 
by  force  from  his  or  their  possession,  before  he  can  be  taken 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  State  in  which  the  arrest  is  made, 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  officer  making  the  arrest  to  retain 
such  fugitive  in  his  custody,  and  to  remove  him  to  the  State 
whence  he  fled,  and  there  to  deliver  him  to  said  claimant, 
his  agent  or  attorney.  And  to  this  end.  the  officer  aforesaid 
is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  employ  so  many  per* 
sons  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  overcome  such  force,  and 
to  retain  them  in  his  service  so  long  as  circumstances  may 
require.  The  *  aid  officer  and  his  assistants,  while  FO  em 
ployed,  to  receive  the  same  compensation  a^d  to  be  allowed 
the  same  expenses  as  are  now  allowed  by  law  for  transporta 
tion  of  criminals,  to  be  certified  by  the  judge  of  the  district 
within  which  the  arrest  is  made,  and  paid  out  of  the  treas 
ury  of  the  United  States:  Provided,  That,  before  such 
charges  are  incurred,  the  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney, 
shall  secure  to  said  officer  payment  of  the  same,  and  in  ease 
no  actual  force  be  opposed,  then  they  shall  be  paid  by  such 
claimant,  his  agent  or  at  orney. 

SBC.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  When  a  warrant  shall 
have  been  issue!  by  any  of  the  officers  under  the  second  sec 
tion  of  this  act,  and  there  shall  be  no  marshal  or  deputy 
marshal  within  ten  miles  of  the  place  where  such  warrant  is 
issued,  it  shall  b°,  the  duty  of  the  officer  issuing  the  same, 
at  the  request  of  the  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  to  ap 
point  some  fit  and  discreet  person,  who  shall  be  willing  to 
act  as  marshal,  for  the  purpose  of  executing:  said  warrant ; 
and  such  person  so  appointed  shall,  to  the  extent  of  execu 
ting  said  warrant,  and  detaining  and  transporting  the  fugi 
tive  named  therein,  have  all  the  power  and  authority,  and 
be,  with  his  assistants,  entitled  to  the  sa^e  compersation 
and  expenses  provided  in  this  act  in  cases  where  the  services 
are  performed  by  the  marshals  of  the  courts. 

SEC.  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  pereon  who 
shall  knowingly  iind  willingly  obstruct  or  hinder  such  claim 
ant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  or  any  person  or  persons  assisting 
him,  her,  or  them,  in  so  serving  or  arresting  such  fugitive 
from  service  or  labor,  or  shall  rescue  such  fugitive  from 
such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  when  so  arrested,  pur 
suant  to  the  authority  herein  given  or  declared,  or  shall  aid, 
abet,  or  assist  such  person  so  owing  service  cr  labor  to  es 
cape  from  such  claimant,  bis  agent  or  attorney,  or  s^all  har 
bor  or  conceal  such  person,  after  notice  that  he  or  she  was  a 
fugitive  from  labor,  as  aforesaid,  /»hall;  for  either  of  the  said 
offences,  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  one  -thousand  dollars, 
which  penalty  may  be  recovered  by  and  for  the  berefit  of 
such  cla  mant,  by  action  of  debt  in  any  court  proper  to  try 
the  same,  saving,  moreover,  to  the  person  claiming  such  la 
bor  or  service,  his  right  of  action  for,  on  account  of,  the  said 
injuries,  or  either  of  them. 

SEC  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  when  said  person 
is  seized  or  arrested,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  said  war 
rant,  by  such  marshal,  and  is  brought  before  ei'her  of  the 
officers  aforesaid,  other  than  the  said  marshal,  it  shall  be 
duty  of  euch  officer  to  proieed  in  the  cas-'e  or  tuch  person,  in 
the  same  way  as  he  is  directed  and  authorized  to  do  when 
such  person  is  seized  and  arrested  by  the  person  claiming 


13 


him,  or  by  his  or  her  agent  or  attorney,  and  is  brought  be 
fore  such  officer  under  the  provisions  of  the  first  section  of 
this  act. 

AMENDMENTS 

intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Mason  to  the  bill  (S.  23)  to 
provide  for  the  more  effectual  execution  of  the  third  clause 
of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States 
At  the  end  of  section  5,  add  : 

And  any  person  or  persons  offending  against  the  provisions 
of  this  section,  to  be  moreover  deemed  guilty  of  a  misde 
meanor,  or  in  obstructing  the  due  execution  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  fined 
in  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  one  half  whereof  shall 
be  to  the  use  of  the  informer;  and  shall  also  be  imprisoned 
for  the  term  of  twelve  months. 
At  the  end  of  section  6,  add: 

And  in  no  trial  or  hearing  under  this  act  shall  the  testi 
mony  of  such  fugitive  be  admitted  in  evidence. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  first  section  of  the 
bill,  after  constituting  the  judges  of  the  courts, 
the  seventeen  thousand  postmasters,  the  collect 
ors,  &c.,  as  tribunals,  without  appeal,  for  the  deliv 
ery  of  anybody,  who  is  sworn  by  anybody,  any 
where,  to  be  a  fugitive  slave,  refers  to  the  before- 
mentioned  officers  in  the  words  "  residing  or  be 
ing  within  such  State  where  such  seizure  or  ar 
rest  is  made."  That  is,  the  judge,  postmaster, 
collector,  &c.,  need  not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the 
State,  or  hold  his  office  in  the  State,  where  the 
seizure  is  made  ;  but  it  is  sufficient  if  he  is*  such 
officer  anywhere  within  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Butler  or  Mr.  Mason,  therefore,  may  send  the 
postmaster  of  his  own  city  or  village,  into  Massa 
chusetts,  with  an  agent  or  attorney,  who  brings 
his  affidavit  from  South  Carolina  or  Virginia,  in 
his  pocket ;  the  agent  or  attorney  may  arrest 
anybody,  at  any  time,  carry  him  before  his  ac 
complice,  go  through  with  the  judicial  forms,  and 
hurry  him  to  the  South  ;  the  officer,  after  his  ju 
dicial  functions  are  discharged,  turning  bailiff, 
protecting  the  prey  and  speeding  the  flight ! 

Still  further ;  this  bill  derides  the  trial,  by  jury, 
secured  by  the  Constitution.  A  man  may  not  lose 
a  horse  without  a  right  to  this  trial ;  but  he  may 
his  freedom.  Mr.  Webster  spoke  for  the  South 
and  for  slavery ;  not  for  the  North  and  for  free 
dom,  when  he  abandoned  this  right.  Such  an 
abandonment,  it  would  be  impossible  to  believe 
of  one  who  has  earned  such  fame  as  Defender  of 
the  Constitution ;  it  would  be  more  reasonable  to 
suppose  the  existence  of  some  strange  misappre 
hension,  had  not  Mr.  Webster,  with  that  pre 
cision  and  strength  which  are  so  peculiarly  his 
own,  declared  his  determination  to  support  this 
hideous  bill,  ic  with  all  Its  provisions  to  the  full 
est  extent,"  when,  at  the  same  moment,  another 
bill,  of  which  he  took  no  notice,  was  pending  be 
fore  the  Senate,  introduced  by  Mr.  Seward  of 
New  York,  securing  the  invaluable  privilege  of 
a  jury  trial. 

I  disdain  to  avail  myself,  in  a  sober  argument, 
of  the  popular  sensitiveness  on  this  subject ;  and 
I  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  the  Constitution 
while  it  is  suffered  to  last.  But  still  I  say,  that 
the  man  who  can  read  this  bill  without  having 
his  blood  boil  in  his  veins,  has  a  power  of  refriger 
ation  that  would  cool  the  tropics. 

I  cannot  doubt  that  Mr.  Webster  will  yet  see 
the  necessity  of  reconsidering  his  position,  on 
this  whole  question. 


Mr.  Webster  says:  "It  is  my  firm  opinion, 
this  day,  that  within  the  last  twenty  years  as 
much  money  has  been  collected  and  paid  to  the 
abolition  societies,  abolition  presses,  and  abolition 
lecturers,  as  would  purchase  the  freedom  of  every 
slave,  man,  woman,  and  child,  in  the  State  of 
Maryland,  and  send  them  all  to  Liberia." 

The  total  number  of  slaves  in  Maryland,  ac 
cording  to  the  last  census,  amounted  to  89,405. 
At  $250  apiece, — which  is  but  about  half  the 
value  commonly  assigned  to  Southern  slaves  by 
Southern  men,— this  would  be  $22y373,750.  Al 
lowing  $30  each  for  transportation  to  Liberia, 
without  any  provision  for  them  after  their  arri 
val  there,  the  whole  sum  would  be  $25;0585600 — 
in  round  numbers  twenty-five  millions  of  dollars  ! 
more  than  a  million  and  a  quarter  in  each  year, 
and  about,  thirty-five  hundred  dollars  per  day. 
I  had  not  supposed  the  abolitionists  had  such  re 
sources  at  their  command. 

I  have  dwelt  thus  long  upon  Mr.  Webster's 
speech,  because  in  connection  with  his  two  votes 
in  favor  of  Mr.  Foote's  committee  of  compromise, 
which  votes,  had  they  been  the  other  way,  would 
have  utterly  defeated  the  committee,  it  is  consid 
ered  to  have  done  more  to  jeopard  the  great  cause 
of  freedom  in  the  territories,  than  any  other 
event  of  this  disastrous  session.  I  have  spoken 
of  Mr.  Webster  by  name,  and,  I  trust,  in  none 
but  respectful  terms.  I  might  have  introduced 
other  names,  or  examined  his  positions  without 
mentioning  him.  I  have  taken  what  seemed  to 
me  the  more  manly  course ;  and  if  these  views 
should  ever  by  chance  fall  under  his  eye,  I  be 
lieve  he  has  magnanimity  enough  to  respect  me 
more  for  the  frankness  I  have  used.  If  I  am 
wrong,  I  will  not  add  to  an  error  of  judgment, 
the  meanness  of  a  clandestine  attack.  If  I  am 
right,  no  one  can  complain  ;  for  we  must  all  bow 
before  the  majesty  of  Truth. 

I  have  now  noticed  the  principal  events  which 
have  taken  place  in  Congress,  and  which  have  led 
to  what  military  men  would  call  the  "  demorali 
zation  "  of  many  of  the  rank  and  file  of  its  mem 
bers.  Some  recent  movements  have  brought  viv 
idly  to  mind  certain  historical  recollections  in  re 
gard  to  the  African  slave  trade,  now  execrated 
by  all  civilized  nations.  When  the  immortal 
Wilberforce  exposed  to  public  gaze  the  secrets  of 
that  horrid  traffic,  his  biographer  says,  "The 
first  burst  of  generous  indignation  promised 
nothing  less  than  the  instant  abolition  of  the 
trade,  but  mercantile  jealousy  had  taken  the  alarm, 
and  the  defenders  of  the  West  India  system 
found  themselves  strengthened  by  the  independ 
ent  alliance  of  commercial  men." — Life  of  Wilber- 
force,  vol.  I,  page  291. 

Again ;  opposition  to  Wilberforce's  motion 
':  arose  amongst  the  Guinea  merchants" — "rein 
forced,  however,  before  long  by  the  great  body  of 
West  India  planters."—/^. 

The  Corporation  of  Liverpool  spent,  first  and 
last,  upwards  of  £10,000  in  defence  of  a  traffic 
which  even  the  gravity  and  calmness  of  judicial 
decisions  have  since  pronounced  "  infernal." 

"  Besides  printing  works  in  defence  of  the  slave 
trade  and  remunerating  their  authors ;  paying 
the  expenses  of  delegates  to  attend  in  London 


14 


and  watch  Mr.  Wilberforce's  proceedings,  they 
pensioned  the  widows  of  Norris  and  Green,  and 
voted  plate  to  Mr.  Penny,  for  their  exertions  in 
this  cause."— Ibid',  page  345. 

It  is  said  that  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool,  at 
this  time,  "  believed  firmly  that  the  very  exist 
ence  of  the  city  depended  upon  the  continuance 
of  the  traffic."  Look  at  Liverpool  now,  and  re 
flect  what  greater  rewards,  even  of  a  temporal 
nature,  God  reserves  for  men  that  abjure  dishon 
esty  and  crime. 

All  collateral  motives  were  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  subject,  just  as  they  are  at  the  present 
time.  The  Guinea  trade  was  defended  "  as  a 
nursery  for  seamen." — Ibid..,  page  293. 

Even  as  late  as  1816,  the  same  class  of  men,  in 
the  same  country,  opposed  the  abolition  of  "  white 
slavery "  in  Algiers,  from  the  same  base  motives 
of  interest.  It  was  thought  that  the  danger  of 
navigating  the  Mediterranean,  caused  by  the 
Barbary  corsairs,  was  advantageous  to  British 
commerce ;  because  it  might  deter  the  merchant 
ships  of  other  nations  from  visiting  it.  After 
Lord  Exmouth  had  compelled  the  Algerines  to 
liberate  their  European  slaves,  he  proceeded 
against  Tunis  and  Tripoli.  In  giving  an  account 
of  what  he  had  done,  he  defends  his  conduct 
"  upon  general  principles,"  but  adds,  "  as  apply 
ing  to  our  own  country.  [Great  Britain.]  it  may 
not  be  borne  out,  the  old  mercantile  interest  being 
against  it.n—  Osier's  Life  of  Exmouth,  page  303. 

So  after  Admiral  Blake,  in  the  time  of  Crom 
well,  had  attacked  Tunis,  he  says,  in  his  despatch 
to  Secretary  Thurloe,  "  And  now  seeing  it  hath 
pleased  God  soe  signally  to  justify  us  herein,  I  hope 
his  highness  will  not  be  offended  at  it,  nor  any  who 
regard  duly  the  honor  of  the  nation,  although  I 
expect  to  have  the  clamors  of  INTERESTED  MEN." — 
Thurloe>s  State  Papers,  Vol  II,  page  390. 

And  is  Commerce,  the  daughter  of  Freedom, 
thus  forever  to  lift  her  parricidal  hand  against 
the  parent  that  bore  her  ?  Are  rich  men  forever 
to  use  their  "  thirty  pieces  of  silver,"  or  their 
"ten  thousand  pounds  sterling,"  or  their  hun 
dreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  to  reward  the  Ju- 
dases  for  betraying  their  Savior  ?  Viewed  by 
the  light  of  our  increased  knowledge,  end  by  oar 
more  elevated  standard  of  duty,  the  extension  of 
slavery  into  California  or  New  Mexico,  at  the  pres 
ent  time,  or  even  the  sufferance  of  it  there,  is  a 
vastly  greater  crime  than  was  the  African  slave 
trade  itself,  in  the  last  century;  and  I  would 
rather  meet  the  doom  of  posterity,  or  of  heaven, 
for  being  engaged  in  the  traffic  then,  than  for 
being  accessary  to  its  propagation  now. 

Let  those  who  aid,  abe/,  or  connive  at  slavery 
extension  now,  as  they  i*ead  the  damning  sen 
tence  which  history  has  awarded  against  the  act 
ors,  abettors  and  connivers  of  the  African  trade, 
but  change  the  names,  and  they  will  be  reading  of 
themselves.  Should  our  new  territories  te  here 
after  filled  with  groaniog  bondmen,  should  they 
become  an  American  Egypt,  tyrannized  over  by 
ten  thousand  Pharaohs,  it  will  be  no  defence 
for  those  who  permitted  it,  to  say,  "  We  hoped, 
we  supposed,  we  trusted,  that  slavery  could  not 
go  there :"  Nemesis,  as  she  plies  her  scorpion 
lash,  will  reply,  "  You  might  have  made  it  certain." 


On  this  great  question  of  freedom  or  slavery  ? 
I  have  observed  with  grief,  nay,  with  anguish, 
that  we,  at  the  North,  break  up  into  hostile  par 
ties,  hurl  criminations  and  recriminations  to  and 
fro,  and  expend  that  strength  for  the  ruin  of  each 
other,  which  should  be  directed  against  the  ene 
mies  of  Liberty :  while,  at  the  South,  whenever 
slavery  is  in  jeopardy,  all  party  lines  are  oblite 
rated,  dissensions  are  healed,  enemies  become 
friends,  and  all  are  found  in  a  solid  column,  with 
an  unbroken  front.  Are  the  children  of  dark 
ness  to  be  forever  so  much  wiser  than  the  chil 
dren  of  light  ?  In  the  recent  choice  of  delegates 
for  the.  Nashville  Convention,  I  have  not  seen  a 
single  instance  where  Whig  and  Democrat  have 
not  been  chosen  as  though  they  were  Siamese 
twins,  and  must  go  together.  But  here  it  often 
happens,  that  as  soon  as  one  party  is  known  to  be 
in  favor  of  one  man,  this  act  alone  is  deemed  a 
sufficient  reason  why  another  party  should  op 
pose  him.  Why  can  we  not  combine  for  the  sa 
cred  cause  of  freedom,  as  they  combine  for  sla 
very?  No  thought  or  desire  is  farther  from  my 
mind  than  that  of  interfering  with  any  man'l 
right  of  suffrage  ;  but  if,  (which  is  by  no  means 
impossible,  nor  perhaps  improbable.)  the  fate  of 
New  Mexico  should  be  decided  by  one  vote,  and 
my  -vote  should  have  been  the  cause  of  a  vacancy 
in  any  Congressional  district  that  might  have  sent 
a  friend  to  freedom,  I  should  say,  with  Cain? 
ci  My  punishment  is  greater  than  I  can  bear." 

On  the  subject  of  the  present  alienation  and 
discord  between  the  North  and  the  South,  I  wieh 
to  say  that  I  have  as  strong  a  desire  for  reconcili 
ation  and  amity  as  any  one  can  have.  There  is 
no  pecuniary  sacrifice  within  the  limits  of  the. 
Constitution,  which  I  would  not  willingly  make 
for  EO  desirable  an  object.  Public  revenues  I 
would  appropriate,  private  taxation  I  would  en 
dure,  to  relieve  this  otherwise  thrice-glorious 
Republic  from  the  calamity  and  the  wrong  of 
slavery.  I  would  not  only  resist  the  devil,  but  if 
he  will  flee  from  me,  I  will  build  a  bridge  of  gold 
to  facilitate  his  escape.  I  mention  this  to  prove 
that  it  is  not  the  value,  in  money. ,  of  territorial 
freedom,  for  which  I  contend,  but  its  value  in 
character,  in  justice,  in  hitman  happiness.  While  I 
utterly  deny  the  claim  set  up  by  the  South,  yet  I 
would  gladly  consent  that  my  Southern  fellow-citi 
zens  should  go  to  the  territories  and  carry  there 
every  kind  of  property  which  I  can  carry  ;  I  would 
then  give  to  the  Southern  States  their  full  share 
of  alf  the  income  ever  to  be  derived  from  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands,  or  the  leasing  of  the 
public  mines  j  and  whatever,  after  this  deduction. 
was  left  in  the  public  treasury,  should  be  appro 
priated  for  the  whole  nation,  as  has  been  the 
practice  heretofore.  That  is,  in  consideration  of 
excluding  slavery  from  the  territories,  I  would 
give  the  South  a  double  share,  or  even  a  three 
fold  share,  of  all  the  income  that  may  ever  be  de 
rived  from  them.  Pecuniary  surrenders  I  would 
gladly  make  for  the  sake  of  peace,  but  not  for 
peace  itself  would  I  surrender  Liberty. 

It  would  be  to  suppose  our  merchants  and  man 
ufacturers  void  of  common  foresight,  could  they 
believe  that  concession  now  will  bring  security 
hereafter.  By  yielding  the  moral  question,  they 


15 


jeopard  their  pecuniary  interests.  Should  the 
South  succeed  in  their  present  attempt  upon  the 
territories,  they  will  impatiently  await  the  retire 
ment  of  Gen.  Taylor  from  the  Executive  Chair, 
to  add  the  "  State  of  Cuba,"  with  its  500,000  slaves, 
its  ignorance  and  its  demoralization,  to  their  roll 
of  triumph.  California  will  be  a  free  trade  State, 
by  the  most  certain  of  all  biases.  They  will  have 
nothing  to  sell  but  gold ;  they  will  have  everything 
to  buy, —  cradles  and  coffins,  and  all  between. 
If  New  Mexico  is  slave,  it  will  also  be  free  trade; 
and  Cuba  as  certainly  as  either, — though  in  that 
island  facilities  for  smuggling  will  reduce  the 
difference  between  tariff  and  free  trade  to  noth 
ing.  A  surrender  therefore,  by  our  Northern 
business  men,  will  be  most  disastrous  to  the  very 
business  that  tempts  them  to  surrender.  Will 
they  take  no  warning  from  the  fact  that  their  apa 
thy  in  regard  to  Texas  repealed  the  tariff  of 
1842  ?  This  is  a  low  motive,  I  admit ;  but  it  may 
be  set  as  a  back-fire  to  the  motive  by  which  some 
of  them  appear  to  be  influenced.  There  was  no 
need,  not  a  shadow  of  need,  of  perilling  any  prin 
ciple,  nor  any  interest.  Had  the  North  stood 
firm,  had  they  been  true  to  the  great  principles 
they  have  so  often  and  so  solemnly  proclaimed, 
the  waves  of  Southern  violence  would  have  struck 
harmless  at  their  feet.  He  is  not  learned  in  the 
weather  who  does  not  know  that  storms  from  the 
South,  though  violent,  are  short.  We  are  assailed 
now  because  we  have  yielded  before.  The  com 
promise  of  1820  begat  the  nullification  of  1832 ; 
the  compromise  of  1S32  inspired  the  mad  exploit 
of  compassing  Texas,  which  our  greater  madness 
made  sane.  The  moral  paralysis  which  failed  to 
oppose  the  Mexican  war.  has  given  us  the  ter 
ritories.  If  the  territories  are  now  surrendered, 
we  shall  have  Cuba,  and  an  indefinite  career  of 
conquest  and  of  slavery  will  be  opened  on  our 
Southwestern  border.  Every  new  concession 
transfers  strength  from  our  side  to  the  side  of  our 
opponents ;  and  if  we  cannot  arrest  our  own  course 
when  we  are  just  entering  the  rapids,  how  can  we 
arrest  it  when  we  come  near  the  verge  of  the  cat 
aract  ?  The  South  may  rule  the  Union,  but  they 
cannot  divide  it.  Their  whole  Atlantic  seaboard 
is  open  to  attack,  and  powerless  for  defence ;  and 
the  Mississippi  river  may  as  easily  be  divided 
physically  as  politically  into  independent  portions. 
With  these  advantages,  let  us  never  aggress  upon 
their  rights,  but  let  us  maintain  our  own. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  would  gladly  relieve  the  dark 
ness  of  this  picture  by  some  gleams  of  light. 
There  are  two  hopes  which,  as  yet,  are  not  wholly 
extinguished  in  my  mind.  Beyond  all  question  a 
compromise  bill  w  ill  be  reported  by  the  committee  of 
thirteen,  in  which  free  California  will  be  made 
to  carry  as  great  a  burden  of  slavery  as  she 
can  bear.  It  is  still  possible  that  the  House 
will  treat  as  it  deserves  this  adulterous  union. 
A  single  vote  may  turn  the  scale,  and  Mas 
sachusetts  may  give  that  vote.  Not  improb 
ably,  too,  the  fate  of  the  bill  may  depend  upon 
the  earnestness  and  decision  with  which  North 
ern  constituencies  make  their  sentiments  known 
to  their  representatives,  whether  by  petitions,  by 
private  letters,  or  by  public  resolutions.  Let 
every  lover  of  freedom  do  his  best  and  his  most. 


Should  the  North  fail,  I  have  still  one  hope 
more,  ft  is  that  New  Mexico  will  do  for  herself 
what  we  shall  have  basely  failed  to  do  for  her.  If 
both  these  hopes  fail,  our  country  is  doomed  to 
run  its  unobstructed  career  of  conquest,  of  des 
potism,  and  of  infamy. 

I  have  now,  my  fellow-citizens,  given  you  my 
"  Views  and  Opinions "  on  the  present  crisis  in 
our  public  affairs.  Had  I  regarded  my  own  feel 
ings  I  should  have  spoken  less  art  length  ;  but  the 
subject  has  commanded  me.  I  trust  I  have  spoken 
respectfully  towards  those  from  whom  I  dissent, 
while  speaking  my  own  sentiments  justly  and 
truly.  I  have  used  no  asperity,  for  all  my  emo 
tions  have  been  of  grief  and  not  of  anger.  My 
words  have  been  cool  as  the  telegraphic  wires, 
while  my  feelings  have  been  like  the  lightning 
that  runs  through  them.  The  idea  that  Massa 
chusetts  should  contribute,  or  consent,  to  the  ex 
tension  of  Human  Slavery !— is  it  not  enough,  not 
merely  to  arouse  the  living  from  their  torpor,  but 
the  dead  from  their  graves !  Were  I  to  help  this, 
nay,  did  I  not  oppose  it  with  all  the  powers  and 
faculties  which  God  has  given  me,  I  should  see 
myriads  of  agonized  faces  glaring  out  upon  me 
from  the  future,  more  terrible  than  Duncan's  at 
Macbeth  ;  and  I  would  rather  feel  an  assassin's 
poignard  in  my  breast  than  forever  hereafter  to 
see  "the  air-drawn  dagger"  of  a  guilty  imagi 
nation.  In  Massachusetts,  the  great  drama  of  the 
Revolution  began.  Some  of  its  heroes  yet  survive 
amongst  us.  At  Lexington,  at  Concord,  and  on 
Bunker  Hill,  the  grass  still  grows  greener  where 
the  soil  was  fattened  with  the  blood  of  our  fa 
thers.  If,  in  the  providence  of  God,  we  must  be 
vanquished  in  this  contest,  let  it  be  by  force  of 
the  overmastering  and  inscrutable  powers  above 
us,  and  not  by  our  own  base  desertion. 

I  am.  gentlemen,  your  much  honored,  obliged, 
and  obedient  servant,  HORACE  MANN. 


LETTER  II. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Boston  Adas  ; 

GENTLEMEN;  Your  semi-weekly  of  the  1st  insL 
contains  a  letter  of  the  Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  in 
which  he  has  been  pleased  to  refer  tome.  I  wish 
to  reply.  To  prevent  all  chance  of  mistake,  I 
quote  the  following  passages  : 

"But,  a*;  the  same  time,  nothing  is  more  false  than  that 
such  jury  trial  is  demanded  in  cases  of  this  kind  by  the 
Constitution,  either  in  its  letter  or  in  its  spirit.  The  Consti 
tution  declares  that  in  all  criminal  prosecutions  there  shall 
be  a  trial  by  jury.  The  claiming  of  a  fugitive  slave  is  not 
a  criminal  prosecution. 

l£  The  Constitution  also  declares  that  in  suits  at  common 
law  the  trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved ;  the  reclaiming  of  a 
fugitive  slave  is  not  a  suit  at  the  common  law;  and  there  is 
no  other  clause  or  sentence  in  the  Cons;itution  having  the 
least  bearing  on  the  subject. 

"  I  have  seen  a  publication  by  Mr.  Horace  Mann,  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  from  Massachusetts,  in  which  I  find  this 
sentence.  Speaking  of  the  bill  before  the  House,  he  says  : 
'  This  bill  derides  the  trial  by  jury  secured  by  the  Constitu 
tion.  A  man  may  not  lose  his  horse  without  a  right  to  this 
trial,  but  he  may  lose  his  freedom.  Mr.  Webster  speaks  for 
the  South  and  fjr  slavery,  not  for  the  North  and  for  freedom, 
when  he  abandons  this  right.'  This  personal  vituperation 
does  not  annoy  me,  but  I  lament  to  see  a  public  man  of  Mas 
sachusetts  so  crude  and  confused  in  his  legal  apprehensions, 
and  so  little  acquainted  with  the  Constituion  of  his  country, 
as  these  opinions  evince  Mr.  Mann  to  be.  His  citation  of 


16 


a  supposed  case,  as  in  point,  if  it  have  any  analogy  to  the 
matter,  would  prove  that,  if  Mr.  Mann's  horse  stray  into  his 
neighbor's  field,  he  cannot  lead  him  back  without  a  previous 
trial  by  jury  to  ascertain  the  right.  Truly,  if  what  Mr.  Mann 
says  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  in  this  pub"  icaf  ion 
bea  test  of  his  accuracy  ic  the  understanding  of  that  instru 
ment,  he  would  do  weJ  not  to  seek  to  protect  his  peculiar 
notions  under  its  sanction,  but  to  appeal  at  once,  as  others 
do,  to  that  higher  authority  which  sits  enthroned  above  the 
Constitution  and  above  the  law." 

I  must  deny  this  charge  of  "personal  vitupera 
tion,"  and  I  regret  that  Mr.  W  ebster,  while  dis 
claiming  "annoyance"  at  what  I  said,  should  be 
tray  it.  I  believe  every  part  of  my  "Letter"  to 
be  within  the  bounds  of  courteous  and  respectful 
discussion.  There  is  nothing  in  it  which  might 
not  pass  between  gentlemen,  without  inter 
rupting  relations  of  civility  and  friendship. 
Though  full  of  regret  at  his  novel  position,  and  of 
dissent  from  his  unwonted  doctrines,  yet  it  abounds 
in  proofs  of  deference  to  himself.  I  must  now, 
however,  be  permitted  to  add  that  the  highest 
eminence  becomes  unenviable,  when  it  breeds  in 
tolerance  of  dissent,  or  bars  out  the  humblest 
man  from  a  free  expression  of  opinion. 

Mr.  Webster  "laments  to  see  a  public  man  of 
Massachusetts  so  crude  and  confused  in  his  legal 
apprehensions,  and  so  little  acquainted  with  the 
Constitution  of  his  country,  as  these  opinions 
evince  Mr.  Mann  to  be."  Yet  he  points  out  no 
error  of  opinion.  He  specifies  nothing  as  unsound. 
He  presents  no  information,  indictment,  bill  of 
particulars,  or  even  the  "common  counts."  Judg 
ment  and  condemnation  alone  appear.  He  seems 
to  have  taken  it  for  granted  that  he  had  only  to 
siy  I  was  guilty,  and  then  proceed  to  punish.  I 
protest  against  and  impugn  this  method  of  pro 
ceeding,  by  any  man,  however  high,  against  any 
man,  however  humble. 

When  Mr.  Webster  penned  his  "lamentations" 
over  my  crudeness,  confusion,  and  ignorance,  he 
doubtless  meant  to  deal  me  a  mortal  blow.  The 
blow  was  certainly  heavy ;  but  the  question  still 
remains,  whether  it  hit.  Polyphemus  struck  hard 
blows,  but  his  blindness  left  the  objects  of  his  pas 
sions  unharmed. 

But  wherein  do  those  erroneous  "opinions" 
consist,  which  Mr.  Webster  does  not  deign  to 
specify,  but  assumes  to  condemn  ?  Fortunately, 
in  writing  the  sentence  which  he  quotes  for  ani 
madversion,  I  followed  the  precise  meaning  of 
Judge  Story,  as  laid  down  in  his  Commentaries; 
and  in  regard  to  the  only  point  which  is  open  to 
a  question,  I  took  the  exact  words  of  that  great 
jurist.  He  speaks  of  "  the  right  of  a  trial  by  jury, 
in  civil  cases,"  as  an  existing  right  before  the 
seventh  article  of  amendment  to  the  Constitu 
tion,  which  preserves  this  right  "in  suits  at  common 
law,"  had  been  adopted. — 3  Comm.,  62S.  Instead 
of  transcribing  Judge  Story's  words,  "in  civil 
cases,"  which  present  no  distinct  image  to  common 
minds,  I  supposed  the  every-day  case  of  litigation 
respecting  a  horse,  which  is  a  "  civil  case ; "  and 
this  difference  of  form  is  the  only  difference  be 
tween  my  language  and  that  of  the  learned  Judge. 
1  can  wish  Mr.  Webster  no  more  fitting  retri 
bution,  after  reposing  from  this  ill  tempered  at 
tack  upon  me,  than  to  awake  and  find  that  it  was 
Judge  Story  whom  he  had  been  maligning. 

Does  not  the  authority  of  Judge  Blackstone 
also  support  my  position? 


"Recapture  or  reprisal,'7  says  he,  "is  another  species  of 
remedy,  by  the  nitre  act  of  the  party  injured.  *  *  * 
But  as  the  public  peace  is  a  superior  consideration  to  any 
one  man's  piivate  property;  and  as,  if  individuals  were 
once  allowed  to  use  private  force  as  a  remedy  for  private  in 
juries,  all  social  justice  mugt  cease,  the  strong  would  give 
law  to  the  weak,  and  every  man  would  revert  to  a  state  of 
nature ;  for  these  reasons  it  is  provided  that  this  natural 
right  of  recaption  shall  never  be  exerted,  where  such  exer 
tion  must  occasion  strife  and  bodily  contention,  or  endanger 
the  peace  of  society.  If,  for  instance,  my  horse  is  taken 
away,  and  i  find  him  in  a  common,  a  fair,  or  a  public  inn,  I 
may  lawlully  seize  him  to  my  own  use ;  but  I  cannot  justify 
breaking  open  a  private  stable,  or  entering  on  the  grounds 
of  a  third  per  son,  to  take  him,  should  he  be  feloniously 
stolen;  but  must  have  recourse  to  an  action  at  law." — 3 
Com.,  4-5. 

But  the  opinion  expressed  by  me  on  this  point 
does  not  need  the  authority  of  any  name  to  sup 
port  it ;  and  the  illustration  which  I  gave  is  not 
only  intelligible  to  every  sensible  man,  but  is  also 
apposite.  I  said  "  a  man  may  not  lose  his  horse 
[his  property  in  a  horse]  without  a  right  to  this 
trial."  Mr.  Webster's  comment  is,  that  this 
case,  "if  it  have  any  analogy  to  the  matter," 
means,  that  if  a  man's  horse  "stray  into  his  neigh 
bor's  field,  he  cannot  lead  him  back  without  a  previous 
trial  by  jury  to  ascertain  the  right."  Was  ever  the 
plain  meaning  of  a  sentence  more  exactly  changed 
about,  end  for  end?  Mr.  Webster  may  pitch 
summersets  with  his  own  doctrines,  but  he  has  no 
right  to  pitch  them  with  mine.  I  said  a  man  may 
not  lose  his  horse,  or  his  property  in  a  horse, 
without  a  right  to  the  trial  by  jury.  He  says  I 
said,  a  man  cannot  find  or  retake  a  lost  horse,  with 
out  a  previous  trial !  Dulce  est  desipere  in  loco. 
Or,  it  is  pleasant  to  see  a  grave  Senator  play  upon 
words ;  though  there  must  be  some  wit  to  redeem  it 
from  puerility. 

But  the  childishness  of  this  criticism  is  not  its 
worst  feature.  What  is  the  great  truth  which 
Mr.  Webster  and  his  apologists  attempt  here  to 
ridicule  ?  Jt  is  that,  while  every  man  amongst 
us.  in  regard  to  any  piece  of  property  worth  more 
than  twenty  dollars,  of  which  violence  or  fraud 
may  attempt  to  despoil  him,  has  a  right  to  a  trial 
by  Jarv;  7et  a  man's  freedom,  and  that  of  his  pos 
terity  forever,  may  be  wrested  from  him,  as  our 
law  now  stands,  without  such  a  trial.  Does  not 
this  hold  a  man's  freedom  to  be  of  less  value  than 
twenty  dollars?  If  two  adverse  claimants  con 
test  title  to  an  alleged  slave,  whose  market  value 
is  more  than  this  sum,  each  is  entitled  to  a  jury 
to  try  the  fact  of  ownership.  But  if  the  alleged 
slave  declares  here,  in  Massachusetts,  that  he 
owns  himself,  he  is  debarred  from  this  right.  And 
this  truth,  or  a  common  illustration  of  it,  Mr. 
Webster  and  his  apologists  think  a  suitable  topic 
for  sneers  or  pleasantry  !  A  foreign  proverb  says, 
that  for  a  man  to  kill  his  mother  is  not  in  good 
taste.  I  trust  the  moral  and  religious  people  of 
Massachusetts  have  too  much  good  taste  to  relish 
jokes  on  such  a  theme. 

MR.  BUTLER'S  BILL,  OR  KIDNAPPING  MADE 
EASY. 

I  said  that  Mr.  Butler's  bill  "  derides  "  the  trial 
by  jury.  By  that  bill  every  commissioner  and 
clerk  of  a  United  States  court,  every  marshal 
and  collector  of  the  customs,  and  the  seventeen 
thousand  postmasters  of  the  United  States,  are 
severally  invested  with  jurisdiction  and  authority 


IT 


in  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  to  deliver  any 
man,  woman,  or  child  in  the  United  States,  into 
custody,  as  a  slave,  on  the  strength  of  an  ex  parte 
affidavit,  made  anywhere  in  the  United  States. 
This  affidavit  may  have  been  made  a  thousand 
miles  off,  by  no  one  knows  whom,  and  certified  to 
by  a  person  who  never  saw  or  heard  of  the  indi 
vidual  named  in  it.  A  forged  affidavit,  or  a  ficti 
tious  affidavit  would  often  answer  the  purpose  as 
well ,  for  how  difficult,  and  in  many  cases,  how 
impossible,  to  prove  its  spiiriousness.  Did  oppres 
sion  ever  before  conceive  such  a  tribunal,  so 
countless  in  numbers,  so  ample  in  jurisdiction,  so 
formidable  in  power  ?  Had  a  bill  similar  to  this 
been  proposed  in  the  British  Parliament,  from 
1763  to  1776,  what  would  our  Fathers  have  said 
of  it  ?  Yet  this  bill,  with  some  kindred  amend 
ments,  heightening  its  features  of  atrocity,  Mr. 
Webster  promised  "  to  support,  with  all  its  pro 
visions,  to  the  fullest  extent." 

What  aggravates  the  wrong,  is.  that  the  cruel 
ties  of  the  measure  would  fall  upon  the  poor,  the 
helpless,  the  ignorant,  the  unfriended.  The  bill 
would  have  been  far  less  disgraceful,  had  its  pro 
visions  borne  upon  the  men  who  should  pass  it  ; 
because,  in  such  case,  there  would  have  been  a 
touch  of  equality.  Now,  if  this  bill  does  not 
"  deride"  all  guaranties  for  the  protection  of  human 
liberty,  it  is  only  because  my  word  of  reprobation 
is  too  weak.  It  is  only  because  one  needs  "  to 
tear  a  leaf  from  the  curse-book  of  Pandemonium  " 
in  order  to  describe  it  by  fitting  epithets. 

Another  remarkable  feature  of  Mr.  Butler's 
bill,  is,  that  it  provides  no  penalty  whatever  for 
any  one  who  shall  abuse,  or  fraudulently  use  the 
dangerous  authority  which  it  gives.  It  famishes 
endless  temptations  and  facilities  for  committing 
wrong  ;  it  imposes  no  restraints  ;  it  warns  by  no 
threats  of  retribution. 

Mr.  Webster  calls  me  to  account  for  some  un 
specified  erroneous  "  opinion.'''  expressed  in  rela 
tion  to  this  bill.  Can  any  opinion  be  so  false  to 
the  Constitution,  as  this  bill  to  humanity  ?  I 
deprecate  error  of  all  sorts ;  but  hold  it  to  be 
more  venial  to  err  in  judgment  than  in  heart. 

I  said  that  in  promising  to  support  Mr.  But 
ler's  bill,  "  with  all  its  provisions  to  the  fullest 
extent,"  Mr.  Webster  "abandoned77  the  right  to 
a  trial  by  jury.  I  spoke  of  him  as  a  Senator,  as 
one  who,  with  his  co-legislators,  has  full  right 
and  power  under  the  Constitution,  to  secure  this 
form  of  trial  to  the  alleged  slave,  or  to  a  known 
freeman  seized  as  a  slave.  Mr.  Seward's  bill, 
providing  for  the  trial  by  jury,  in  such  cases,  was 
before  him.  He  took  no  notice  of  it.  He  passed 
by  "on  the  other  side,77  while  he  bestowed  his 
best  encomium  on  Mr.  Butler's  bill,  by  promising 
to  support  it.  Was  not  this  an  "  abandonment,77 
under  all  the  synonymes  given  in  the  dictionary  ? 

HIGHER  POWERS,  AND  LOWER. 

Mr.  Webster  advises  me,  in  a  certain  contin 
gency,  "  to  appeal  to  that  higher  authority  which 
sits  enthroned  above  the  Constitution  and  above 
the  law.77  I  take  no  exception  to  this  counsel, 
because  of  its  officiousness,  but  would  thank  him 
for  it.  My  ideas  of  duty  require  me  to  seek  anx 
iously  for  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Consti 
tution,  and  then  to  abide  by  it,  unswayed  by 
2 


hopes  or  fears.  If  the  Constitution  requires  me 
to  do  anything  which  my  sense  of  duty  forbids,  I 
shall  save  my  conscience  by  resigning  my  office. 
I  am  free,  however,  to  say,  that  if,  in  the  discharge 
of  my  political  duties,  I  should  transfer  my  alle 
giance  to  any  other  power,  I  should  adopt  Mr. 
Webster's  advice,  and  go  to  the  power  "  which  sits 
enthroned  above,77  rather  than  to  descend  to  that 
opposite  realm,  whence  the  bill  he  so  cordially 
promised  to  support,  must  have  emerged. 

1  wish,  however,  to  remark,  that  though  I  ac 
knowledge  the  Constitution  to  be  my  guide  while 
under  oath  to  support  it,  yet  I  do  not  relish  any 
fling  either  at  the  powers  above  us,  or  at  thos'e 
who  reverence  them.  I  hold  it  be  not  only  pro 
per,  but  proof  of  sound  moral  and  religious  feel 
ing,  to  leok  to  the  perfect  law  of  God  for  light  to 
enable  us  more  justly  to  interpret  the  imperfect 
laws  of  man.  Especially,  when  we  are  pro-posing 
to  make  or  amend  a  law,  ought  we  to  take  our 
gauge  of  purpose  and  of  action  from  the  highest 
standard. 

Noy,  that  Solomon  of  the  law,  thought  it  not 
improper  to  say :  "The  inferior  law  must  give 
place  to  the  superior ;  man's  laws  to  God's 
laws.77 — Maxims,  pp.  6 — 7. 

"  The  law  of  Nature,"  eays  Blackston«,  "  being  coeval 
with  mankind,  and  dictated  by  God  himself,  is,  of  course, 
superior  in  obligation  to  any  other.  It  is  binding  all  over 
the  globe ;  in  all  countries,  at  all  times.  No  human  laws 
have  any  validity,  if  contrary  to  this  ;  and  such  of  them  as 
are  valid,  derive  all  their  force  and  all  their  authority,  me 
diately  or  immediately  from  this  original.'1 — 1  Com.,  41. 

Fortescue,  the  Chancellor  of  Henry  VI,  in  his  de 
Laudibus  Legum  Anglice,  cap.  42,  has  the  following 
passage,  the  consideration  of  which,  in  requital 
for  Mr.  Webster's  advice  to  me,  I  respectfully 
commend  to  him : 

"  That  must  necessarily  be  adjudged  a  cruel  law,  which 
augments  slavery,  and  diminishes  Liberty.  For  Human 
Nature  imp'ores  without  ceasing  for  Liberty.  Slavery  is 
introduced  by  man, and  through  his  vice.  But  Liberty  is  the 
gift  of  God  to  man.  Wherefore,  when  torn  from  a  man,  it 
ever  yearns  to  return;  and  it  is  the  same  with  everything 
when  deprived  of  its  natural  Liberty.  On  this  account, 
that  man  is  to  be  adjudged  cruel,  who  does  not  favor  Liber 
ty.  By  these  considerations  the  Laws  of  England,  in  every 
case,  give  favor  to  Liberty." — Cap,  42. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  PROVISIONS  FOR   TRIAL  BY 
JURY,  WITH  HISTORICAL  REFERENCES. 

I.  Where  Congress  has  power  to  provide  for  such 
trial. 

II.  Where  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  do  so. 
Having  defended  my  own  propositions,  I  shall 

now  take  the  liberty  to  examine  some  of  Mr. 
Webster7s. 

He  says  "the  Constitution  declares  that  in  all 
criminal  prosecutions,  there  shall  be  a  trial  by 
jury;77  and  that,  "in  suits  at  common  law  the 
trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved.77  He  then  adds, 
"  there  is  no  other  clause  or  sentence  in  the  Con 
stitution  having  the  least  bearing  upon  the  sub 
ject.77  Mark  his  words:  "There  is  no  other 
clause  or  sentence  in  the  Constitution,  having  the 
least  bearing  on  the  subject?  This  I  deny. 

Here  Mr.  Webster  virtually  declares  that,  but 
for  the  above-named  two  provisions,  the  right  of 
the  trial  by  jury  would  not  have  been  secured 
to  us  by  the  Constitution  in  any  case.  Of  course, 
Congress  would  have  been  under  no  obligation, 
nor  would  it  have  had  any  power,  to  provide  by 
law  for  such  trials. 


18 


Were  I  to  say  that  this  assertion  borders  on 
the  incredible,  one  might  well  ask,  which  side  of 
the  line  does  it  lie  ? 

The  pro-vision  for  a  trial  by  jury,  in  criminal 
prosecutions,  is  in  the  third  clause  of  the  second 
section  of  the  third  article,  and  is  repeated,  and 
somewhat  enlarged,  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  articles 
of  amendment. 

But  the  provision  for  trial  by  jury,  in  suits  at 
common  law,  is  in  the  seventh  article  of  amend 
ment  ;  and  neither  this  provision,  nor  any  sem 
blance  of  it,  is  to  be  found,  in  express  words,  in 
any  part  of  the  Constitution  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  its  framers,  and  was  adopted  by  the 
States. 

According  to  Mr.  Webster,  then,  Congress  were 
under  no  obligation,  and  had  no  power,  to  make 
a  law  providing  for  trial  by  jury,  except  in  criminal 
prosecutions,  until  after  the  seventh  article  of 
amendment  had  been  ratified  ;  for  if  they  had 
any  such  power,  or  were  under  any  such  obliga 
tion,  it  must  be  by  virtue  of  some  clause  or  sen 
tence  in  the  Constitution,  having  a  "bearing  upon 
the  subject" 

Now,  the  first  session  of  Congress  commenced 
March  4th,  1789,  but  this  seventh  article  of 
amendment  was  not  ratified,  and  did  not  become 
a  part  of  the  Constitution,  according  to  Hickey, 
(Rickey's  Con.,  p.  36;)  until  December  15, 1791. 

Until  this  time,  therefore,  according  to  Mr. 
Webster,  the  Constitution  had  secured  no  right 
to  a  trial  by  jury,  except  in  the  case  of  criminal 
prosecutions ;  because,  until  this  time,  there  was 
no  clause  or  sentence  in  it,  "  having  the  least 
bearing  on  the  subject"  of  jury  trials  in  civil 


Yet,  on  the  24th  of  September,  1789,  and  more 
than  two  years  previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  seventh 
amendment,  (by  which  alone,  according  to  Mr. 
Webster,  they  had  any  power  to  act  in  the  prem 
ises,)  Congress  did  pass  the  judiciary  act ;  by  the 
ninth,  twelfth,  and  thirteenth  sections  of  which 
it  is  provided,  that  the  trial  of  issues  in  fact,  in 
the  District  Courts,  in  the  Circuit  Courts,  and 
in  the  Supreme  Court,  shall,  with  certain  excep 
tions,  be  by  jury. 

The  act  also  empowers  the  Courts  to  grant  new 
trials  "for  reasons  for  which  new  trials  have 
usually  been  granted  in  the  courts  of  law." 
In  what  courts  of  law?  Did  it  not  mean  the 
Courts  in  Westminster  Hall,  and  those  in  this 
country  formed  after  that  ancestral  model  ?  And 
does  this  show  beyond  question  or  cavil,  that  the 
principle  of  the  jury  trial,  in  civil  cases,  was  incor 
porated  into  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  originally ;  and  that  it  was  universally 
understood  to  be  so  by  its  framers,  and  by  their 
contemporaries,  the  members  of  the  first  Con 
gress  ? 

From  the  Constitution  alone,  then,  and  not 
from  any  power  above  it,  or  outside  of  it,  did 
Congress  derive  its  power,  on  the  24th  of  Sep 
tember,  1789,  and  more  than  two  years  before 
the  seventh  amendment  was  adopted,  to  pass  the 
Judiciary  Act,  and  to  fill  it  full  of  the  fact  and 
the  doctrine  of  jury  trials  in  civil  cases.  And  if 
Congress,  at  that  time,  had  legislated  on  the  sub 
ject  of  fugitive  slaves,  would  it  not  have  had  the 
same  power  to  provide  the  trial  by  jury,  to  deter 


mine  the  question,  slave  or  free,  as  it  had  to  pro 
vide  for  this  mode  of  trial  in  other  cases  ? 

All  the  State  Conventions  for  adopting  the 
Constitution,  whose  debates  are  preserved,  and 
all  the  leading  men  who  figured  in  them,  held,  con 
trary  to  Mr.  Webster,  that  the  third  article  in  the 
Constitution,  providing  for  courts,  carried  jury 
trials  in  civil  cases  with  it.  Mr.  Marshall,  after 
wards  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  said  in  the  Vir 
ginia  Convention :  "  Does  the  word  Court  only 
mean  the  Judges  ?  Does  not  the  determination 
of  a  Jury  necessarily  lead  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Court?  Is  there  anything  which  gives  the  judges 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  matters  of  fact  ?  What 
is  the  object  of  a  jury  trial  ?  To  inform  the  Court 
of  the  facts.  When  a  Court  has  cognizance  of 
facts,  does  it  not  follow  that  they  can  make  inquiry 
by  a  jury  ?  It  is  impossible  to  be  otherwise."— 3 
Elliott's  Debates,  506. 

The  third  article  in  the  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights 
was  as  follows : 

"In  controversies  respecting  property,  and  in  suits  be 
tween  man  and  man,  the  ancient  trial  by  jury  is  preferable 
to  any  other,  and  ought  to  be  held  sacred." 

This  article  being  read  in  the  Convention, 
Judge  Marshall  said  the  trial  by  jury  nas  as  well 
secured  by  the  United  States  Constitution,  as  by  the 
Virginia  bill  of  rights. — Ib.,  524.  He  said  this  in 
reference  to  civil  cases. 

In  the  Massachusetts  Convention,  it  was  said, 
without  a  doubt  being  expressed  from  any  quar 
ter,  that  "  the  word  court  does  not,  either  by  pop 
ular  or  technical  construction,  exclude  the  use  of 
a  jury  to  try  facts.  When  people  in  common  lan 
guage  talk  of  a  trial  at  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  or  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  do  they 
not  include  all  the  branches  and  members  of  such 
courts,  the  jurors  as  well  as  the  judges  ?  They 
certainly  do,  whether  they  mention  the  jurors  ex 
pressly  or  not.  Our  State  legislators  have  con 
strued  the  word  court  in  the  same  way."  —  2  Elli 
ott's  Debates,  127. 

Sach  was  the  doctrine  maintained  by  the  lead 
ing  minds  in  the  State  Conventions;  by  Christo 
pher  Gore,  in  Massachusetts  ;  by  Judge  Wilson, 
and  Chief  Justice  McKean,  in  Pennsylvania;  by 
Chief  Justice  Marshall,  Judge  Pendleton,  and 
Mr.  Madison,  in  Virginia ;  by  Judge  Iredell,  in 
North  Carolina,  and  many  other  distinguished 
names. 

In  the  Virginia  Convention,  objection  was 
made  to  the  Constitution,  because  it  did  not  ex 
pressly  secure  to  the  accused  the  privilege  of  chal 
lenging  or  excepting  to  jurors  in  criminal  cases. 
But  Mr.  Pendleton,  the  President  of  the  Conven 
tion,  and  for  so  many  years,  the  highest  judicial 
officer  in  the  State,  replied  :  "  When  the  Consti- 
stitution  says  that  the  trial  shall  be  by  jury,  does 
it  not  say  that  every  incident  will  go  along  with 
it?"— 3  Elliott's  Debates,  497. 

So  when  the  Constitution  provided  for  "  courts," 
and  defined  their  jurisdiction,  it  clearly  contem 
plated  the  trial  by  jury,  in  regard  to  all  such 
rights  of  the  citizen  as  had  been  usually,  thereto 
fore,  tried  by  a  jury.  Congress,  indeed,  might 
fail  to  perform  its  duty  ;  but  in  such  case,  no 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  however  express 
and  peremptory,  would  secure  the  rights  of  the 
people. 


19 


It  is  perfectly  well  known  to  every  student  of 
the  Constitution,  that  the  only  reason  why  that 
instrument  did  not  make  express  provision  for 
the  trial  by  jury,  in  civil  cases,  was  the  difficulty 
of  running  the  dividing  line  between  the  many 
cases  that  should  be  so  tried,  and  the  few  that 
should  not.  All  were  agreed  that  ninety-nine 
per  cent,  of  all  civil  cases  should  be  tried  by  jury  ; 
but  they  could  not  agree  upon  the  classes  of  cases 
from  which  the  remaining  one  per  cent,  should 
be  taken. 

In  this  connection,  it  is  worth  while  to  notice 
the  heading  or  preamble  of  the  Joint  Resolutions 
for  submitting  certain  proposed  amendments  of 
the  Constitution  to  the  States,  among  which  was 
the  seventh.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"  The  Conventions  of  a  number  of  the  States  having  at 
the  time  of  their  adopting  the  Constitution  expressed  a  de 
sire,  in  order  to  prevent  misconstruction  or  abuse  of  its 
powers,  ibat  further  declaratory  or  restrictive  clauses 
should  be  added ;  an<i  as  the  extending  the  ground  of  public 
confidence  in  the  Government  will  best  insure  thebeneficent 
ends  o-  its  institution,  RESOLVED,"  &c. 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  first  Congress 
only  proposed  to  submit  certain  '•'•further  declara 
tory  and  restrictive  clauses]"*  "  to  prevent  miscon- 
struc.tion  or  abuse  of  its  powers/'  This  heading 
or  title,  of  course,  does  not  enlarge  or  limit  the 
meaning  of  the  amendments  ,  but  it  shows  the 
view  of  their  scope  and  intendment  which  their 
authors  held.  But  what  is  the  seventh  amend 
ment  but  a  "  declaratory  and  restrictive  clause," 
securing  the  trial  by  jury,  in  cases  at  common 
law,  "  where  the  value  in  controversy  shall  ex 
ceed  twenty  dollars,"  and  abandoning  it  where 
the  value  is  less? 

The  phraseology  of  the  amendment  is  full  of 
significance  :  "  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be 
preserved."  Not  created,  but  preserved.  Not 
instituted  de  novo,  but  continued.  How  can  a 
right  be  preserved,  which  does  not  already  exist  9 

In  speaking  of  the  trial  by  jury,  in  criminal 
cases,  Judge  Story  uses  the  same  word.  He  says 
it  was  "  preserved."  In  neither  class  of  cases, 
civil  or  criminal,  was  it  ever  abandoned  or  lost, 
through  the  fault  of  the  Constitution.  If  not  al 
ways  enjoyed  by  the  citizen,  it  has  been  through 
the  dereliction  of  Congress  in  not  passing  the 
requisite  laws. 

The  great  men  who  submitted  this  seventh 
amendment  to  the  States,  treated  the  trial  by 
jury,  in  civil  cases,  as  a  then  subsisting  constitu 
tional  right.  They  pissed  a  law,  to  put  the  prac 
tical  enjoyment  of  this  right  into  the  hands  of  the 
people,  well  knowing  that  there  is  scarcely  a 
right  which  we  hold  under  the  Constitution 
which  we  can  beneficially  possess  or  use,  with 
out  the  intervention  of  some  law,  as  its  chan 
nel  or  medium. 

Suppose  this  seventh  amendment  had  never 
been  adopted,  on  what  ground  would  the  trial 
by  jut  y.  in  civil  cases,  have  rested  up  to  the  pres 
ent  day  ? 

In  asserting,  therefore,  that,  besides  the  refer 
ences  he  has  made,  there  is  not  another  "  clause 
or  sentence  in  the  Constitution,  hiving  the  least 
tearing  on  the  subject"  of  jury  trials,  Mr.  Webster 
is  contradicted  by  the  members  of  the  General 
Convention,  by  the  State  Conventions,  by  the 
Senators  and  Representatives,  who  passed  the 


Judiciary  act,  by  President  Washington  who 
signed  it,  and  by  all  the  judges  who  administered 
that  act  until  the  seventh  amendment  was  adopted. 

II.  Where  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  for 
trial  by  jury. 

But  another  of  Mr.  Webster's  assertions  is 
still  more  extraordinary.  He  says  "nothing  is 
more  false  than  that  such  jury  trial  [a  trial  by 
jury  for  an  alleged  slave,  or  for  a  freeman  claimed 
as  a  slave,]  is  demanded  by  the  Constitution, 
either  in  its  letter  or  in  its  spirit.'' 

I  make  a  preliminary  remark  upon  the  amaz 
ing  untruth  embodied  in  the  form  of  this  propo 
sition. 

"  Nothing  is  more  false ;"  that  is,  if  I,  or  any 
one,  had  affirmed  that  our  Constitution  forbids 
trial  by  jury,  in  all  cases,  under  penalty  of  death ; 
or  that  it  creates  a  hereditary  despotism ;  or  that 
it  establishes  the  Catholic  religion  with  the  ac 
companiment  of  an  inquisition  for  each  State ;  or 
that  it  does  all  these  things  together ;  it  would 
not  be  more  "  false  "  to  the  "  spirit "  of  the  Con 
stitution,  than  to  say  that  it  demands  the  trial  by 
jury,  when  a  man  who  is  seized  as  a  slave,  but 
who  asserts  that  he  is  free,  invokes  its  protection. 

But  this  pertains  to  iheform  only  of  his  asser 
tion.  I  proceed  to  inquire  whether  its  substance 
be  not  as  indefensible  as  its  form. 

In  another  part  of  Mr.  Webster's  letter,  he 
says,  that  he  sees  "  no  objection  to  the  provisions 
of  the  law"  of  1793.  Of  course,  he  sees  no  objec 
tion  to  Mr.  Butler's  bill,  and  its  amendments;  but 
he  prefers  them  to  Mr.  Seward's.  And  he  now 
says,  there  is  nothing  in  the  letter  or  in  the 
"spirit"  of  the  Constitution,  which  demands  the 
jury  trial  for  an  alleged  slave,  or  for  a  freeman 
captured  and  about  to  be  carried  away  as  a  slave. 

Feeble  and  humble  as  I  am,  great  and  formida 
ble  as  he  is,  I  join  issue  with  him,  on  this  momen 
tous  question,  and  put  myself  upon  the  country. 

Our  Constitution,  as  the  present  generation 
has  always  been  taught,  yearns  towards  liberty 
and  the  rights  of  man.  The  trial  by  jury,  in  the 
important  cases  of  timb,  life,  or  liberty,  is  essen 
tial  to  these  rights.  The  two,  therefore,  have 
such  close  affinity  for  each  other,  as  to  render  it 
highly  probable,  if  not  morally  certain,  that  the 
framers  of  the  former  would  make  provision  for 
the  latter  ;  that  they  would  lay  hold  of  it,  as  by  a 
law  of  instinct,  to  carry  out  their  beneficent  pur 
poses.  The  trial  by  jury  was  necessary  to  the 
vitality  of  the  Constitution  ;  and  it  would  hardly 
be  too  strong  an  expression  to  say  that  the  Con 
stitution,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  itsfounders, 
necessitated  the  trial  by 'jury. 

The  object  for  which  the  Constitution  was 
framed,  as  set  forth  in  its  preamble, — namely,  to 
"establish  justice,"  "promote  the  general  wel 
fare,"  and  "  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,"  to 
the  people. — could  never  be  accomplished  without 
the  trial  by  jury.  The  preamble  is  not  appealed 
to  as  a  source  of  power ;  but  it  touches,  as  by  the 
finger,  the  objects  which  it  contemplated  ;  it  sug 
gests  the  means  by  which  its  beneficent  purposes 
were  to  be  fulfilled,  and  it  indicates  the  rules  of 
interpretation  by  which  all  its  provisions  are  to 
be  expounded. 

And  not  only  the  objects  for  which  the  Consti 
tution  professes  to  exist,  but  historical  facts  from 


20 


the  time  of  Magpa  Charta,  and  before  that  time ; 
the  practice  of  the  English  and  of  our  Colonial 
and  Provincial  Courts  before  the  Revolution  and 
during  the  Confederacy  ; — in  fine,  all  analogies 
and  tendencies  of  constitutional  law,  and  what 
ever  belongs  to  ideas  of  freedom,  conspire  to 
force  the  expectation  upon  us,  that,  in  a  matter 
of  such  vast  concernment  as  the  life-long  liberty 
or  bondage  of  a  man  and  his  offspring,  it  has  not 
left  us  without  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 

TJbe  very  first  law  "for»the  general  good  of 
the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth,  (1623,)"  was,  "that 
all  criminal  acts,  and  also  all  matters  of  trespasses 
and  DEBTS,  between  man  and  man,  should  be  tried 
by  the  verdict  of  twelve  honest  men." 

In  that  fearful  array  of  crimes  which  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence  charges  home  upon  the 
King  of  Great  Britain,  that  sublime  instrument 
enumerates  the  following  as  among  the  most  flagi 
tious  :  "  For  depriving  us,  in  many  cases,  of  the 
benefits  of  trial  by  jury,"  and  "  for  protecting  his 
troops,  ly  a  mock  trial,  from  punishment  for  any 
murders  which  they  should  commit  on  the  in 
habitants  of  these  States." 

According  to  Blackstone,  the  right  to  a  trial 
by  jury  had  been  held,  "  time  out  of  mind,"  to 
be  the  birthright  of  Englishmen.  The  29th 
chapter  of  the  Great  Charter  guarantied  this 
right,  not  only  in  cases  of  liberty,  life,  and  limb, 
but  in  cases  of  property,  real  and  personal. 

In  England,  it  has  become  a  traditional  saying, 
and  drops  from  the  common  tongue,  that  the  great 
object  of  King,  Lords,  and  Commons,  is  to  get 
twelve  men  into  a  jury  box. 

Judge  Story  says,  "When  our  more  imme 
diate  ancestors  removed  to  America,  they  brought 
this  great  privilege  with  them,  as  their  birthright 
and  inheritance,  as  a  part  of  that  admirable  com 
mon  law  which  had  fenced  round,  and  interposed 
barriers  on  every  side,  against  the  approaches  of 
arbitrary  power.  It  is  now  incorporated  into  all 
our  State  Constitutions,  as  a  fundamental  right ; 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  would 
have  been  justly  obnoxious  to*  the  most  conclu 
sive  objection,  if  it  had  not  recognised  and  con 
firmed  it  in  the  most  solemn  terms." — 3  Com., 
652-3. 

Is  it  conceivable,  then,  that  the  heroes  and 
sages  of  the  Revolution,  who  rose  in  resistance  to 
the  most  formidable  Power  on  earth  ;  so  many  of 
whom  rose  against  their  own  kindred  in  the 
mother  country, because  they  loved  liberty  better 
than  father  or  mother,  or  brother  or  sister,  and 
who  endured  the  privations  and  horrors  of  a 
seven  years'  war, — is  it  conceivable,  I  say,  that, 
when  they  had  achieved  their  independence,  and 
there  was  no  longer  any  earthly  power  to  control 
them,  they  should  have  framed  a  fundamental 
law,  and  should  not  have  imbued  that  law  with 
the  "spirit"  of  the  trial  by  jury,  as  its  breath  of 
life?  As  British  subjects,  they  were  entitled  to 
this  trial.  As  Americans,  did  they  renounce  it  ? 
Did  they  wage  war  for  seven  years  in  order  to 
place  themselves  in  a  worse  condition  than  they 
had  been  placed  in  by  their  "tyrant?"  Mr. 
Webster  says  they  did.  He  charges  this  infi 
nite  folly  and  blindness  upon  them  singly  and 
collectively,  one  and  all. 


DECISIONS  OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT. 
But,  to  examine  more  particularly  the  phrase 
ology  of  the  seventh  amendment.  What  is  the 
true  meaning  of  those  descriptive  words,  "  suits 
at  common  law  ?;;  Has  not  Mr.  Webster,  relying 
on  his  high  reputation,  disposed  of  this  matter 
a  little  too  summarily  ?  He  says,  "  the  Consti 
tution  declares  that  in  suits  at  common  law,  the 
trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved;"  but  he  adds, 
"  the  reclaiming  of  a  fugitive  slave  is  not  a  suit 
at  common  law." 

But  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
has  furnished  us  with  an  authoritative  interpre 
tation  of  the  words  of  the  Constitution  bearing 
on  this  subject.  In  the  case  of  Cohens  vs.  Vir 
ginia,  6  Wheaton  R.,  407,  they  define  what  is 
meant  by  a  "  suit."  These  are  their  words : 

"  What  is  a  suit  ?  We  understand  it  to  be  the  prosecu 
tion,  or  pursuit,  of  some  claim,  demand,  or  request.  In  law 
language,  it  is  the  prosecution  of  some  demand  in  a  court 
of  justice.  'The  remedy  for  every  species  of  wrong,  is/ 
says  Judge  Blackstoue, '  the  being  put  in  possession  of  that 
ri'ht  wheieof  the  party  injured  is  deprived.'  The  instru 
ments  whereby  this  remedy  is  obtained,  are  a  diversity  of 
suits  and  actions,  which  are  defined  by  the  Mirror  to  be 
'the  lawful  demand  of  one's  right;'  or,  as  Bracton  and 
Fleta  express  it,  in  the  words  of  Justinian,  '-jus  prosequen- 
di  injudicio  quod  alicui  d<be'ur.J — (the  form  of  pro-ecuting 
in  trial,  or  judgment,  what  is  due  to  any  one  )  Blackstjne 
then  proceeds  to  describe  every  specie  •  of  remedy  by  suit; 
and  they  are  all  cases  where  the  party  suing  claims  to 
obtain  something  to  which  he  has  a  right. 

To  commence  a  suit,  is  to  demand  something  by  the  in- 
ftitu':ion  of  process  in  a  court  of  justice;  and  to  prosecute 
the  suit,  is,  according  to  the  common  acceptation  of  lan 
guage,  to  continue  that  demand." 

According  to  the  Supreme  Court,  then,  a  suit  is 
the  prosecution  of  some  claim,  demand,  or  request. 
But  the  proceedings  for  a  fugitive  slave,  according 
to  the  very  letter  of  the  Constitution,  are  insti 
tuted  to  prosecute  a  claim.  The  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  is  to  be  delivered  up,  "  on  claim 
of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due." 

Still  farther,  in  a  decision  bearing  directly  on 
the  right  to  a  trial  by  jury,  the  Supreme  Court 
have  defined  the  term  "  common  law"  in  special 
reference  to  its  meaning  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  which  secures  this  right  "  in  suits 
at  common  law."  These  are  their  words : 

"  It  is  well  known,  that  in  civil  causes,  in  courts  of  equity 
and  admiralty,  juries  do  not  intervene;  and  that  courts  of 
equity  use  the  trial  by  jury  only  in  extraordinary  cases, 
to  inform  the  con1  cience  of  the  court.  When,  therefore,  we 
find  that  the  [7th]  amendment  requires,  thit  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved  in  suits  at  common  law, 
the  natural  conclusion  is,  that  this  distinction  was  present 
to  the  minds  of  the  framers  of  the  amendment.  By  cwin- 
mon  law  they  meant,  what  the  Constitution  denominated 
in  the  thiri  article  'law;'  not  merely  suits, which  the  com 
mon  law  recognised  among  its  old  and  settled  proceedings  ; 
but  suits,  in  which  legal  rights  were  to  b3  ascertained  and 
determiner],  in  contradistinction  to  those  in  which  equitable 
rights  alone  were  recognised,  and  equitable  remedies  were 
administered,  or  in  which,  as  in  the  admiralty,  a  mixture  of 
public  law,  and  of  maritime  law  and  equity,  was  often 
found  in  the  same  snit.  Probably  there  were  few,  if  any, 
States  in  the  Unio~,  in  which  some  new  legal  remedies, 
differing  from  the  old  common  law  forms,  were  not  in  use  ; 
but  in  which,  h  .wever,  the  trial  by  jury  intervened,  and 
the  generd  regulations  in  other  respect  *,  were  according  to 
the  course  of  the  common  law.  Proceedings  in  cases  of 
partition,  and  of  foreign  and  domestic  attachment,  might 
be  cited,  as  examples  variously  adopted  and  modified.  In  a 
just  sense,  the  amendment,  then,  may  well  be  construed  to 
embrace  all  suits,  which  are  not  of  equity  or  admiralty  ju- 
risiiction,  WHATEVER  MAYBE  THE  PECULIAR  FORM  WHICH 

THEY  MAY  ASSUME  TO  SETTLE    LEGAL  RIGHTS  "—ParSOnS 

vs.  Bedford,  3  Peters1  s  Rep.,  456-7. 


21 


The  last  sentence  I  have  underscored.  In  this 
sentence,  the  Supreme  Court  plainly  eay,  that,  if 
the  subject-matter  of  the  litigation,  or  the  object 
of  the  proceeding,  be  to  determine  a  "  legal  right" 
which  was  formerly  determined  by  a  "suit  at 
common  law,"  then  such  proceeding  is  embraced 
in  the  seventh  amendment,  and  either  party  in 
interest  has  a  right  to  the  trial  by  jury.  Now, 
is  it  not  clear  that  any  proceeding  which  deter 
mines  whether  a  man  owns  himself,  or  is  owned 
by  another  man,  and  which  delivers  one  man  into 
the  custody  of  another,  as  his  slave,  or  refuses  so 
to  deliver  him,  is,  "whatever  peculiar  form  it 
may  assume,"  a  proceeding  "  to  settle  a  legal 
right," — the  highest  legal  right?  It  is  not  a 
right  in  equity,  in  admiralty,  or  under  the  mari 
time  law;  but  strictly  and  exclusively  a  legal 
right,  and  nothing  else.  According  to  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Supreme  Court,  then,  in  the  above 
cited  case,  the  parties  to  such  a  proceeding  have 
a  right,  under  the  seventh  amendment,  to  a  trial 
by  jury.  At  least,  is  not  such  the  "  spirit"  of  the 
amendment? 

But  there  is  another  well-known  fact,  which 
gives  pertinence  and  stringency  to  the  above 
view.  At  common  law,  the  writ  de  homine  reple- 
giando, — the  writ  of  personal  replevin,  or  for  re- 
plevying  a  man, — was  an  original  writ ;  a  writ 
which  the  party  could  sue  out,  of  right ;  one  to 
be  granted  on  motion,  without  showing  cause,  and 
which  the  Court  of  Chancery  could  not  super 
sede.  It  was,  according  to  the  very  language  of 
our  Supreme  Court,  recognised  by  the  common 
law  "among  its  old  and  settled  proceedings." 
The  form  of  it  is  found  in  that  great  arsenal  of 
common  law  writs,  the  Registrum  Brevium.  A 
man,  says  Comyn,  may  have  a  homine  replegiando 
for  a  negro;  or  for  an  Indian  brought  by  him 
into  England  and  detained  from  him ;  or  it  may 
be  brought  by  an  infant  against  his  testamentary 
guardian ;  or  by  a  villein  against  his  lord.  (Dig., 
Title  Imprisonment,  L.  4 ) 

If  it  could  be  brought  by  a  villein  against  his 
lord,  then  it  was  the  very  writ  for  an  alleged  slave 
against  an  alleging  owner.  It  was  the  mode  pro 
vided  by  the  common  law  for  the  determination 
of  the  legal  right  asserted  in  a  human  being.  I 
have  always  understood  that,  before  the  Revolu 
tion,  and  before  the  framing  of  our  Constitution, 
Comyn's  Digest  was  a  work  of  the  highest  author 
ity.  It  must  have  been  well  known  to  all  the 
lawyers  in  the  Convention.  Did  they  expect, 
then,  that  when  an  alleged  slave,  or  a  known  free 
man,  should  be  seized,  that  he  should  be  hurried 
into  bondage  without  any  right  to  this  ancient 
muniment  of  the  subject's  liberties  ? 

But  "  the  reclaiming  of  a  fugitive  slave,"  says 
Mr.  Webster,  "  is  not  a  suit  at  the  common  law." 
The  proceedings  provided  for  by  the  statute  of 
1793,  to  which  he  "  sees  no  objection,"  have  no 
analogy  to  the'writ  de,  homine  replegiando.  But  can 
you  destroy  the  right  to  a  jury  trial  by  changing 
the  process  ?  A  sand-hiller  from  Georgia  or 
North  Carolina,  cannot  come  to  Massachusetts 
and  eject  Mr.  Webster  from  his  Marshfield 
farm,  without  being  compelled  to  submit  the 
question  of  title  to  a  jury.  But  suppose  Congress 
should  say,  in  effect,  that  any  one  of  the  seven 
teen  thousand  postmasters  in  the  United  States 


might  be  brought  into  Massachusetts,  (and,  among 
so  numerous  a  body,  it  is  no  libel  to  say  there  are 
some  reckless  men.)  and  that  the  said  sand-hiller 
might  go  before  the  said  imported  postmaster,  and 
after  proof  "  to  his  satisfaction,"  "  either  by  oral 
testimony  or  by  affidavit," — an  affidavit,  be  it  re 
membered,  taken  anywhere  in  the  United  States, — 
then  the  claimant  shall  be  put  into  immediate 
possession  of  the  said  farm,  with  a  right  to  recover 
costs;  and  suppose  Mr.  Webster  should  spurn 
the  authority  of  this  illegitimate  Court,  and  de 
mand  an  observance  of  the  ancient  forms  of  law, 
and  a  trial  by  jury  under  the  seventh  amendment ; 
then  the  claimant  has  only  to  borrow  Mr.  Web 
ster's  own  words,  and  say,  "this  is  not  a  suit  at 
the  common  law :" — suppose  all  this,  I  say,  and  I 
would  then  ask  if  such  a  proceeding  would  be  sat 
isfactory  to  the  last  named  gentleman  ?  The 
common  sense  of  mankind  is  authority  good 
enough  to  answer  such  a  question,  but  we  have 
high  legal  authority  in  addition. 

In  Baker  vs.  Riddle,  Mr.  Justice  Baldwin,  one 
of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  held  that  it  was  not  in  the  power 
of  Congress  to  take  away  the  right  of  trial  by- 
jury,  secured  by  the  seventh  amendment,  nei 
ther, — "  1.  By  an  organization  of  the  courts  in 
such  a  manner  as  not  to  secure  it  to  suitors;" 
nor, — "  2.  By  authorizing  the  courts  to  exercise, 
or  their  assumption  of,  equity  or  admiralty  juris 
diction  over  cases  at  law."  "  This  amendment," 
says  he,  "preserves the  right  of  jury  trial  against 
any  infringement  by  any  department  of  the  Gov 
ernment."—  Baldwin's  Rep.,  404. 

Now,  what  was  Mr.  Butler's  bill,  but  "  a  new 
organization  of  the  courts,''  or,  rather,  a  new 
creation  of  some  twenty  thousand  courts,"  in  such 
a  manner  as  not  to  secure  [the  right  of  trial  by 
jury]  to  suitors?"  It  was,  indeed,  a  violation  of 
both  of  the  principles  laid  down  by  Judge  Bald 
win.  It  was  the  creation  of  tribunals  unknown 
to  the  common  law,  and  authorizing  those  tribu 
nals  to  decide  upon  rights  not  belonging  to  either 
"  equity  or  admiralty  jurisdiction." 

In  this  connection,  I  will  refer  to  the  case  of 
Lee  vs.  Lee,  8  Peters's  Rtp.,  44. 

By  act  of  Congress,  of  April  2,  1816,  it  was  de 
clared  that  no  cause  should  be  removed  from  the 
Circuit  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  by  appeal  or  writ  of  error,  "un 
less  the  matter  in  dispute  shall  be  of  the  value  of 
one  thousand  dollars  or  upwards."  The  plaintiffs 
in  error  were  claimed  as  slaves.  Their  petition 
for  freedom  in  the  court  below  had  been  decided 
against  them;  and  from  this  decision  they  appealed. 
The  defendant  in  error  took  the  objection  that 
they, — their  bodies  and  souls, — were  not  worth  one 
thousand  dollars,  and  therefore  that  they  had  no 
right  to  appeal.  But  the  court  said  : 

"  The  matter  in  dispute,  in  this  case,  is  the  freedom  of  the 
petitioners.  The  judgment  of  the  court  below  is  against 
their  claims  to  freedom ;  the  matter  in  dispute  is,  therefore, 
to  the  plaintiffs  in  error,  the  value  of  their  freedom,  and  this 
is  not  susceptible  of  a  pecuniary  valuation.  Had  the  judg 
ment  been  in  favor  of  the  petitioners,  and  the  writ  of  error 
brought  by  the  party  cUiming  to  be  the  owner,  the  value  of 
the  s'aves  as  property  would  have  been  the  matter  in  dispute, 
and  affidavits  might  be  admitted  to  ascertain  Buch  value. 
But  affidavits  estimating  the  value  of  freedom  are  entirely 
inadmissible;  and  no  doubt  is  entertained  of  the  jurisdastion 
of  the  court.'J 


22 


Now,  if  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
in  construing  a  law.  felt  constrained  by  their  oaths 
to  hold  the  freedom  of  a  man, — of  any  man,  though 
he  might  be  a  drivelling  idiot,  or  stretched  upon  his 
deathbed,  with  only  another  hour  to  breathe, — to 
be  worth  more  than  a  thousand  dollars,  how  can  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States  say,  that  in  passing 
a  law,  under  which  human  liberty  may  be  retained 
or  lost,  he  is  not  bound  at  least  by  the  "  spirit "  of 
the  Constitution,  if  not  by  its  letter,  to  hold  that 
human  liberty  to  be  of  greater  value  than  twenty 
dollars,  and  therefore  to  provide  the  trial  by  jury 
for  its  protection  ?  What  can  prove  more  striking 
ly  that  Mr.  Webster  violates  the  whole  "  spirit " 
of  the  Constitution,  when  the  framers  and  ratifiers 
of  this  amendment  covenanted  for  and  decreed  the 
trial  by  jury,  for  such  a  paltry  sum  of  money ;  and 
when  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  held  hu 
man  liberty  to  be  worth  more  than  any  uameable 
sum  of  money,  while  he  regards  it  as  a  thing  to  be 
disposed  of  by  any  corrupt  postmaster  which  any 
corrupt  Administration  may  corruptly  appoint. 
Yet  he  says :  "  Nothing  can  be  more  false  than 
that  a  jury  trial  is  demanded  in  cases  of  this  kind 
by  the  Constitution,  either  in  its  letter,  or  in  its 
spirit." 

DOGMATIZING. 

I  wish  I  could  find,  or  felt  at  liberty  to  coin  some 
milder  word ;  but  for  want  of  a  better,  I  must  say 
that  Mr.  Webster  seems  to  me,  throughout  this 
whole  matter,  to  dogmatize.  He  makes  strong  as 
sertions  without  offering  even  weak  reasons.  Of 
this  character  was  his  annunciation  of  the  discov 
ery  of  a  new  law, — "  the  law  of  physical  geogra 
phy," — which  was  to  suspend  moral  agency,  and 
take  from  man  his  power  to  commit  crime  against 
his  brother ;  as  though  in  ascending  hill-sides, 
freedom  and  slavery  lie  in  different  atmospherical 
strata,  and  are  bounded  by  each  other  impassably ; 
as  though  there  were  any  mountain  so  "  exceeding 
high,"  to  whose  top  even  Jesus  Christ  could  go, 
that  Satan  could  not  go  there  to  tempt  him.  This 
does  not  strike  the  common  mind  like  a  true  dis 
covery  ;  like  the  law  of  gravitation,  for  instance, 
discovered  by  Newton,  or  the  existence  of  the 
planet  Neptune,  by  Leverrier.  It  is  rather  like 
that  earliest  pretended  discovery  on  record,  which 
was  designed  to  seduce,  and  did  seduce,  the  first 
parents  of  us  all.  Ye  may  eat  of  the  forbidden  tree, 
for  ye  shall  NOT  surely  die.  So  Mr.  Webster  says, 
Let  slaves  be  driven  in  coffles,  or  carried  in  ships' 
holds  to  the  new  Territories;  they  cannot  live 
there.  Will  not  the  results  of  the  two  experiments 
bear  a  lively  analogy  to  each  other,  and  be  likely 
to  reflect  similar  credit  upon  their  authors  ? 

So,  too,  when  he  tore  some  of  the  brightest  pages 
from  the  New  Testament,  by  proclaiming  that 
"there  is  to  be  found  no  injunction  against  that 
relation  [of  slavery]  between  man  and  man,  in  the 
teachings  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  of  any 
of  his  Apostles  " !  Upon  how  many  Christian  hearts 
did  this  sentiment  fall  like  an  anathema  against  all 
truth.  He  does  not  say  any  express  injunction,  but 
"  no  injunction ; " — none  of  any  kind.  No  positive 
injunction  against  slavery  in  the  New  Testament ! 
— a  book  designed  to  regulate  our  life  and  condition 
for  two  worlds;  yet,  altogether,  not  so  large  as 
many  a  Congressional  report;  less  voluminous 
than  the  ordinances  of  many  of  our  city  govern 


ments  ; — a  book,  therefore,  which,  from  the  neces 
sity  of  the  case,  must  deal  with  great  and  immortal 
principles,  and  could  not  descend  into  specification 
and  detail ; — and  because  such  a  book  as  this  con 
tains  no  express  injunction  against  slavery,  there 
fore  slavery  is  not  forbidden  by  it,  but  has  the 
implied  approval  of  its  silence!  Never  was  there 
a  more  sinister,  unsound,  unchristian  argument 
uttered  by  infidel  or  pagan.  Is  there  any  express 
injunction  "  in  the  teachings  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  or  of  any  of  his  Apostles,"  commanding  us 
to  declare  the  African  slave  trade  piracy  ?  Is 
there  any  express  injunction  "in  the  teachings  of 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  of  any  of  his  Apos 
tles,"  against  cannibalism  ?  Do  they  anywhere 
say,  "  Ye  shall  not  eat  one  another  ?  "  Yet  what 
enormity  and  flagitiousness  would  it  be  to  infer, 
that,  therefore,  men  and  women  may  turn  Ogres 
and  Ogresses,  and  eat  human  flesh  as  they  do 
mutton  and  beef.  The  inference  in  the  latter  case 
is  every  whit  aa  warrantable,  as  sound,  as  in  the 
former.  Yet  I  consider  that  this  theological  argu 
ment  does  not  violate  the  "spirit "  of  the  Gospel, 
anymore  than  his  constitutional  argument  violates 
the  "spirit"  of  the  Constitution.  John  Wesley, 
who  had  lived  amid  slavery,  denominates  it  the 
"sum  of  all  villanies,"  and  if  Christ  came  into 
this  world  and  left  it,  without  permeating  and 
saturating  all  his  teachings  with  injunctions 
against  the  injustice,  cruelty,  pride,  avarice,  lust, 
love  of  domination,  and  love  of  adulation,  which 
are  the  inseparable  accompaniments  of  slavery, 
then  I  think  the  Christian  world  will  cry  out, 
that,  so  far  as  this  life  is  concerned,  his  mission 
was  substantially  fruitless. 

"  Oh,  star-eyed  Sc'ence !  hast  thou  wandered  there, 
To  bring  us  back  these  tidings  of  despair? " 

So  if  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  con 
tains  not  even  any  implied  security  for  the  liberty 
of  all  the  colored  population  in  the  free  States  and 
Territories,  and  for  the  trial  by  jury  as  the  only 
adequate  means  of  securing  that  liberty,  then 
would  it  not  be  more  creditable  to  its  framers 
never  to  have  put  their  signatures  to  it  ? 

LIBERTY  OF  THE  CITIZENS  MORE  VALUABLE 
THAN  THEIR  LIFE  OR  PROPERTY. 

The  fifth  article  of  amendment  declares  that 
"no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property,  without  due  process  of  law."  The  com 
mentators  say  that  these  words,  "due  process  of 
law,"  are  the  equivalent  of  the  phrase  "the  law  of 
the  land,"  in  the  29th  chapter  of  Magna  Charta  ; 
and  henca  that  "  this  clause  in  effect  affirms  the 
right  of  trial  according  to  the  process  and  pro 
ceedings  of  the  common  law;"  that  is,  by  jury. 
See  Story's  Comm.,  661 ;  2  Inst.,  50,  51 ;  2  Kent's 
Comm.,  10;  1  Tuckers  Black.  App,  304. 

Now,  consider  that  the  general  right  of  trial  by 
jury,  in  cases  of  life,  was  expressly  secured  by  the 
Constitution  as  originally  adopted;  that,  somewhat 
more  than  three  years  afterwards,  the  same  right 
was  expressly  secured  for  property,  in  suits  at  com 
mon  law,  whenever  the  value  in  controversy  should 
exceed  twenty  dollars;  and  then  say  whether  there 
is  not  the  strongest  implication  in  favor  of  the 
same  right,  in  cases  of  human  liberty,  which  is  so 
much  more  precious  than  life  and  property  com 
bined.  I  do  not  here  say  it  is  an  implication  that 
binds  the  courts  in  administering  a  law :  that  is 


not  the  point  under  discussion.  But  is  it  not  an 
implication  that  binds  the  legislator,  so  that  when 
legislating  on  the  subject,  he  cannot  conscientious 
ly  and  wilfully  abandon  it  without  infidelity  to  his 
oath  ?  I  do  not  believe  that  many  men  from  the 
free  States  will  ever  be  found  in  Congress  who 
will  not  take  this  view  of  the  subject.  Indeed,  not 
a  few  of  the  best  lawyers  and  jurists  have  held  that 
the  implication  binds  the  courts ;  and  therefore, 
that  the  statue  of  1793  is  unconstitutional* 

Mr.  Webster  treats  the  two  cases,  of  fugitives 
from  justice  and  fugitives  from  service,  alike;  al 
though  one  can  almost  adopt  his  own  language, 
and  say  that  "  nothing  is  more  false "  than  that 
they  are  alike.  In  regard  to  the  first  class,  the 
Constitution  says,  a  person  "charged"  with  treason, 
•&c. ;  but  in  regard  to  the  second  class,  it  says  no 
person,  "  held,"  &c. 

According  to  the  obvious  intent  of  this  language, 
the  alleged  fugitive  must  b  3 proved  to  be  held,  bound, 
obligated.  It  is  not  enough  that  he  be  charged  to 
be  "held"  to  service,  though  it  is  enough  that  a 
man  be  "charged"  with  crime.  To  bring  the  first 
case  within  the  legal  category  of  the  second,  its 
terms  should  be  "  a  person  guilty  of  treason,"  &c., 
shall  be  delivered  up.  Were  such  the  phraseology, 
would  any  one  doubt  that  proof  of  guilt  should 
precede  delivery,  and  that  there  could  be  no  other 
foundation  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Webster  says,  "perhaps the  only  insupera 
ble  difficulty  "  to  a  trial  by  jury, "  has  been  created 
by  the  States  themselves."  Suppose  this  to  be  so, 
I  would  ask  whose  duty  is  it  to  act  first, — that  of 
Congress  to  provide  the  trial,  or  that  of  the  States 
to  remove  the  impediment?  Shall  the  States  re 
peal  their  laws  first,  and  leave  the  liberty  of  the 
citizens  in  jeopardy ;  or  shall  not  Congress  legis 
late  first,  and  secure  that  liberty  ?  Which  is  of 
the  greater  importance,  that  the  owner  should  re 
cover  his  slave,  or  that  the  citizen  should  retain 
his  freedom  ?  I  answer  according  to  the  language 
which  the  criminal  law  uses  respecting  guilt  and 
innocence,  that  it  is  better  that  nine  hundred  and 
ninety -nine,  that  is,  an  indefinite  number,  of  slaves 
should  escape,  than  that  one  free  man  should  be 
delivered  into  bondage. 

Besides,  I  think  no  State  legislated  on  the  sub 
ject  for  the  protection  of  its  own  citizens,  until 
1842.  This  was  after  Congress  had  neglected 
for  more  than  fifty  years  to  do  its  duty.  Why, 
then,  should  Mr.  Webster  cast  the  blame  upon 
the  States  which  forbore  for  more  than  fifty  years 
to  act  protectively  for  themselves,  when  Congress, 
of  which  he  had  been  a  leading  member  for  nearly 
forty  years,  had  endangered,  instead  of  securing, 
the  liberty  of  their  citizens?  When  he  said  that 
"  every  member  of  every  Northern  Legislature  is 
bound  by  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,"  why  did  not  the  retort  suddenly 
rise  to  his  mind  that  he  was  bound  by  oath  not 
less  than  they ;  and  that  his  oath  embraced  the 
men  that  owned  freedom,  not  less  than  the  men 
that  owned  slaves?  Besides,  he  charges  only 
a  part  of  the  free  States  with  being  guilty  of  un 
just  legislation.  Shall  the  innocent  States  suffer 
because  of  the  others'  offence  ?  Rather  shall  not 

*  See  an  elaborate  opinion  of  Chance" lor  Wai  worth,  14 
Wend.,  507,  Jack  YS  Martin. 


23 

Congress  first  supply  the  means  of  protection  to 
the  citizens  of  all  ? 

It  seems  to  me,  too,  that  the  fourth  amendment 
has  an  important  "  bearing  upon  the  subject,"  be 
cause  it  shows  that  the  master-thought  of  our 
fathers,  in  forming  the  Constitution,  was  to  se 
cure  the  liberties  of  the  citizen.  It  provides 
against  "unreasonable  seizures"  of  "persons." 
I  suppose  the  main  idea  of  this  amendment  was 
to  secure  the  citizen  against  "unreasonable  seiz 
ure,"  even  in  cases  where  he  should  afterwards, 
and  at  som*  time,  be  brought  to  trial  according  to 
the  forms  of  the  common  law.  But  wh,at  "  seiz 
ure"  can  be  more  "unreasonable,"  than  one 
whose  object  is,  not  an  ultimate  trial,  but  bondage 
forever,  without  trial  ?  Can  mortal  imagination 
conceive  of  any  seizure  less  entitled  than  this  to 
be  called  "  reasonable?"  With  what  indignation 
did  our  fathers  frown  because  they  were  trans 
ported  beyond  seas  to  be  tried;  yet,  by  our  pres 
ent  law,  and  by  the  law  which  Mr.  Webster 
promises  to  support,  a  free  man  may  be  trans 
ported,  if  not  beyond  seas,  at  least  beyond  lands, 
and  beyond  States,  not  to  be  tried,  but  to  be  held 
in  slavery  forever  without  trial.  If  a  free  citizen 
of  Massachusetts  should  be  seized  and  plunged 
into  a  Massachusetts  prison,  to  be  kept  there  for 
life;  and  his  children,  as  a  consequence  of  his  fate, 
were  put  into  the  same,  or  into  other  prisons,  as 
fast  as  they  were  born,  to  be  also  kept  for  Ijfe; 
and  such  was  the  original  object  and  avowed  pur 
pose  of  the  seizure,  would  not  this  conflict  a  little 
with  the  "spirit"  of  the  fourth  amendment? 
And  does  this  proceeding  conflict  with  this 
"  spirit "  any  the  less,  because,  the  prison  is  a 
Southern  rice  swamp,  or  cotton  field,  where  the 
nearest  door  or  outlet  of  escape  is  more  than  a 
hundred  miles  from  the  spot  of  confinement?  In 
common  law  actions,  trover,  detinue,  replevin,  &c., 
&c.,  the  trial  is  to  be  in  the  vicinage,  except  there 
is  some  overpowering  reason  for  changing  the 
venue,  or  place  of  trial.  But  here  is  a  transfer 
of  the  party,  not  for  a  trial,  but  for  evading  a  trial. 
I  submit,  then,  to  the  public,  that  here  are 
three  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  each  one  of 
which  does  have  "a  bearing  on  the  subject." 
Each  strengthens  the  other.  They  form  a  triple 
implication,  if  not  a  trinoda  necessitas,  which  no 
man,  however  powerful  he  may  be,  can  break. 

The  argument  which  the  lawyers  call  ab  incon- 
venienti, — the  argument  from  inconvenience, — has 
been  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  slaveholder  to 
endanger  the  liberties  of  the  citizen.  I  answer, 
there  are  two  sides  to  this  argument ;  nor  was  it 
wise  in  the  slaveholder,  or  his  Northern  friends, 
to  name  it.  It  seems  to  me  quite  as  inconvenient 
for  a  free  man  to  lose  his  liberty,  as  for  a  slave 
holder  to  lose  his  slave.  If  a  Southern  man  sues 
a  Northern  one  for  the  value  of  a  bale  of  cotton 
or  a  barrel  of  rice,  must  not  the  plaintiff  await 
the  next  term  of  the  court  before  he  can  enter  his 
action,  abide  by  the  rules  of  the  court  respecting 
continuances,  and  submit  to  the  order  of  business 
in  taking  his  turn  before  a  jury  ?  To  obviate 
this  inconvenience,  has  any  legislature  or  any 
court  ever  proposed  to  set  aside  or  annul,  at  once, 
all  the  securities  by  which  we  hold  property  and 
life?  And  how  stands  the  question  respecting 
evidence  or  proof?  If  difficult  for  a  slave- 


24 


claimant,  from  Texas,  to  prove  title  to  his  slave 
in  Massachusetts,  how  infinitely  more  difficult  for 
a  citizen  of  Massachusetts  to  prove  title  to  him 
self  in  Texas.  But  Mr.  Webster  says  there  are 
independent  courts  at  the  South,  "always  open 
and  recidy  to  receive  and  decide  upon  petitions  or 
applications  for  freedom."  Suppose  this  to  be 
true ;  how  is  a  man  or  a  woman,  whose  master 
knows  that  he  or  she  is  free,  to  get  to  the  courts? 
Mr.  Webster  seems  to  think  that  as  soon  as  a 
kidnapping  slave-dealer  shall  transport  his  human 
prey  to  the  South,  he  will  at  once  take  him  to,  or 
allow  him  to  go  before  a  court  of  justice,  or  will 
sell  him  to  some  brother  Samaritan  who  will  do 
so.  Does  not  everybody  know  that  any  man, 
who  is  capable  of  the  enormous  guilt  of  seizing  or 
buying  a  freeman,  will  chain,  and  scourge,  and 
starve  and  mutilate  that  freeman,  if  he  but  so 
much  as  open  his  lips  in  audible  prayer  to  God 
for  the  restoration  of  his  birthright  ? 

Mr.  Webster  says,  persuasively,  that  the  alleged 
slave  "  is  only  remitted,  for  inquiry  into  his  rights, 
to  the  State  from  which  he  fled."  But  suppose  he 
had  never  "fled  ;"  but  was  demeaning  himself  as 
a  peaceable  citizen,  under  the  solemnly  pledged 
protection  of  the  Government,  on  the  soil  where 
he  was  born !  This  is  the  false  idea  that  underlies 
the  whole  of  Mr.  Webster's  seductive  letter,  that 
under  such  a  bill  as  Mr.  Butler's,  nobody  but  a 
slave  would  ever  be  arrested. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  what  Mr.  Webster  says 
about  Southern  courts  being  "  fair  and  upright," 
is  very  generally  and  extensively  true ;  but  I  have 
had  a  little  personal  knowledge  of  Southern  courts, 
and  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  there  has 
been  one,  at  least,  before  which,  if  a  slave  were 
suing  for  his  freedom,  and  any  popular  clamor 
against  him  should  exist,  he  would  have  no  more 
hope  of  obtaining  his  liberty  through  the  "fair 
ness  "  of  the  court,  than,  if  thrown  overboard  in 
the  middle  of  the  Atlantic  ocean,  he  would  have 
of  saving  his  life  by  swimming  ashore. 
MASSACHUSETTS  PRINCIPLES,  THOUGH  RIDI 

CULED,  YET  RIGHTEOUS. 
Mr.  Webster  holds  Massachusetts  up  to  the 
ridicule  of  the  world,  because  she  "  grows  fervid 
on  Pennsylvania  wrongs  ;"  and  he  has  deemed  it 
his  duty  to  inquire  how  many  seizures  of  fugitive 
slaves  have  occurred  in  New  England  within  our 
time.    Is  this  the  Christian  standard  by  which  to 
estimate  the  evil  of  encroachments  upon  the  most 
sacred  rights  of  men  1     If  I  repose  in  contentment 
and  indifference,  because  my  own  section,  or  State, 
or  county,  is  as  yet  but  a  partial  sufferer,  why 
should  I  not  continue  contented  and  indifferent 
while  I  myself  am  safe?     In  providing  for  the 
liberties  of  the  citizen,  under  a  common  Govern 
ment,  I  think  Massachusetts  worthy  of  all  honor, 
and  not  of  ridicule,  because  she  does  "  grow  fervid 
on  Pennsylvania  wrongs,"  and  on  the  wrongs  of 
an  entire  race,  whether  in  Pennsylvania  or  Cali 
fornia,  or  anywhere  within  the  boundaries  of  our 
own  country.    I  see  no  reason  why  my  sympathies 
as  a  man,  or  the  obligations  of  my  oath  as  an  offi 
cer,  in  regard  to  the  nearer  or  the  remoter  States, 
should  be  inversely  as  the  squares  of  the  distan 
ces.     Even  with  regard  to  foreign  countries,  did 
Mr.  Webster  think  so,  in  those  better  days,  when 


his  eloquent  appeal  for  oppressed  and  bleeding 
Greece  roused  the  nation,  like  the  voice  of  a 
clarion?  Did  Mr.  Webster  deem  it  necessary  to 
make  inquisitions  through  all  the  New  England 
States,  to  learn  how  many  Hungarian  patriots 
they  had  seen  shot  at  the  tap  of  drum,  or  how  many 
noble  Hungarian  women  had  been  stripped  and 
whipped  in  their  market-places,  before  he  thrilled 
the  heart  of  the  nation,  at  the  wrongs  of  Kossuth 
and  his  compatriots,  and  invoked  the  execrations 
of  the  world  upon  the  Austrian  and  Russian  des 
pots?  I  see  no  difference  between  these  cases, 
which  is  not  in  favor  of  our  home  interests,  of  our 
own  domestic  rights,  except  the  diiference  of  their 
bearings  upon  partisan  politics  and  Presidential 
rivalries.  Mr.  Webster  quotes  and  commends 
Mr.  Bissell,  who  said  that  those  Southern  States 
which  had  suffered  the  least  from  loss  of  slaves 
made  the  greatest  clamor.  That  statement  of  a 
fact  was  well  put  by  Mr.  Bissell ;  but  was  it  well 
applied  by  Mr.  Webster?  In  the  statement,  it 
was  a  question  as  to  the  loss  of  property.  In 
the  application,  it  is  a  question  as  to  the  loss  of 
liberty.  The  latter  is  not,  therefore,  the  "  coun 
terpart"  of  the  former.  Blindness  to  the  distinc 
tion  between  the  value  and  the  principle  of  prop- 
perty,  and  the  value  and  the  principle  of  liberty, 
could  alone  have  permitted  the  comparison. 

CONCLUSION. 

But  I  have  extended  this  communication  greatly 
beyond  my  original  purpose.  Several  other  topics 
contained  in  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  or  growing 
out  of  what  has  since  happened  in  relation  to  it, 
and  hardly  less  important  than  those  already  con 
sidered,  must  await  another  opportunity  for  dis 
cussion  ;  unless,  indeed,  some  disposal  of  the  ques 
tion  shall  render  further  discussion  unnecessary. 
I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  position  in  which  I 
stand.  1  am  not  unaware  that  circumstances  have 
placed  me  in  an  antagonist  relation  to  a  man  whose 
vast  powers  of  intellect  the  world  has  long  so 
tividly  enjoyed  and  so  profoundly  admired.  I 
well  know  that  &  personal  contest  between  us  seems 
unequal,  far  more  than  did  the  threatened  contest 
between  the  Hebrew  stripling  and  the  champion 
of  the  Philistines,  who  had  a  helmet  of  brass  upon 
his  head,  and  greaves  of  brass  upon  his  legs,  and 
the  staff  of  whose  spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam. 
But  the  contest  is  not  between  us.  It  is  between 
truth  and  error;  and  just  so  certain  as  the  spirit 
of  Good  will  prevail  over  the  spirit  of  Evil,  just 
so  certain  will  Truth  ultimately  triumph.  In 
such  a  case  as  this,  there  is  one  point  of  view  in 
which  Mr.  Webster  is  a  desirable  antagonist ;  for 
the  thick  and  far-beaming  points  of  light,  which 
he  has  left  all  along  his  former  course  of  life,  can 
not  fail  to  expose,  to  other  eyes  than  his  own,  the 
devious  path  into  which  he  has  now  wandered. 
HORACE  MANN. 
WASHINGTON,  June  6,  1850. 


NOTES. 

Another  edition  of  the  preceding  communication? 
having  been  called  for,  I  avail  myself  of  the  opportu 
nity  it  presents,  to  add  a  fen  notes. 

I  had  hoped  not  to  be  required  to  say  more  on 
this  subject ;  but,  during  the  past  week,  Mr. 


25 


ebater  has    issued,    in    a    pamphlet  form,  a 
eech  made  by  him,  in  the  Senate,  on  the  17th 
t.,  accompanied  by  his  letter  to  some  gentlemen 
n  the  Kennebec  river,  dated  on  the  same  day.    In 
is  letter,  Mr.  Webster  has  referred  to  me  again  ; 
nd  he  seems  to  have  given  himself  full  license  to 
epart  from  all  the  rules  of  courtesy  belonging 
a  gentleman,  and  to  disobey  the  obligations  of 
uth,  belonging  to  a  man.    The  angry  and  re- 
•oachful  language,  in  which  he  has  now  indulged 
mself,  releases  me  from  all  further  obligation 
treat  him  with  personal  respect.    Yet  I  intend 
it  to  avail  myself  of  the  release.    I  confess  that 
y  habit  of  looking  up  to  him  with  political  def 
ence  and  regard,  had  become  so  inveterate,  that 
will  require  at  least  another  volley  of  his  in- 
Its  to  break  it.    Under  present  relations,  how- 
rer,  I  feel  at  liberty  to  use  considerable  plain- 
CBS  of  speech. 

For  perspicuity,  I  shall  arrange  what  I  have  to 
y,  under  distinct  heads. 

MR.  WEBSTER'S  TIUPLE  FALSIFICATION  OF  A 
PLAIN  MATTER  OF  FACT. 

At  the  first  onset,  Mr.  Webster  charges  me 
ith  an  act  which,  if  true,  wounds  my  character 
seply,  as  an  honorable  man  ;  but,  if  untrue,  de- 
roys  his.  It  is  untrue.  To  give  plausibility  to 
s  charge,  he  resorts  to  the  following  threefold 
Isification  of  a  plain  matter  of  fact.  In  profess- 
g  to  quote  from  his  7th  of  March  speech,  he 
is  suppressed  what  he  did  say ;  he  has  intro- 
iced  what  he  did  not  say  ;  and  he  has  then  ap- 
ied  my  criticism,  not  to  his  original  sentiment 
i  which  it  was  made,  but  to  the  counterfeit  one 
hich  he  has  surreptitiously  put  in  its  place. 
In  his  7th  of  March  speech,  Mr.  Webster  said, 
[  would  not  take  pains  to  re-affirm  an  ordinance 
Nature,  nor  to  re-enact  the  will  of  God."  This 
as  the  sentiment  I  criticised.  It  appears  in 
ese  words,  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  in  the 
men,  in  the  Republic,  in  the  Globe,  and  in  the 
,mphlet  edition  which  he  dedicated  to  the  people 
Massachusetts.  But  in  his  Kennebec  letter,  in 
der  to  take  away  the  ground  of  my  criticism,  he 
as  interpolated  a  word  into  the  above  sentence, 
biich  changes  its  whole  meaning.  Pretending 
quote  himself,  he  says,  "  I  would  not  take  pains 
ELESSLY  to  re-affirm  an  ordinance  of  Nature,  or 
ree'Dact  the  will  of  God."  By  foisting  in  the 
ord  which  I  have  underscored,  he  changes  the 
itire  character  of  the  sentiment  advanced.  As 
>w  stated,  nobody  can  dissent  from  it ;  for  who 
ould  announce,  in  a  distinct  proposition,  that  he 
ould  uselessly  do  anything  ?  As  originally  stat- 
,  nobody  can  assent  to  it.  This  perversion  is 
>t  only  false  towards  me,  but  it  contains  a  latent 
nfession  that  he  knew  he  was  wrong.  Else 
hy  did  he  make  the  alteration  ?  Why  did  he 
.ink  the  surreptitious  changing  of  his  doctrine 
be  a  less  evil  than  the  acknowledgment  of  it 
originally  avowed  ?  Had  he  quoted  his  origi- 
il  false  sentiment  truly,  the  world  would  have 
en  that  1  was  right ;  but  in  his  dilemma,  he  in- 
rpolated  a  true  sentiment  falsely,  in  order  to 
•ove  that  my  criticism,  on  such  a  sentiment,  was 
rong.  He  expunges  the  original  sentiment  on 
hich  my  criticism  was  made  ;  he  forges  an  oppo- 
te  sentiment,  to  which  no  one  would  ever  ob- 
ct ;  and  then  he  applies  my  criticism  made  on  the 


expunged  sentiment,  to  his  counterfeited  substi 
tute. 

I  shall  not  venture  to  define  or  describe  a  pro 
ceeding  like  this,  in  words  of  my  own.  I  trust, 
as  yet,  that  I  obey  the  apostolic  injunction,  and 
possess  my  soul  in  patience ;  and  it  will  take  at 
least  another  discharge  from  his  battery  of  wrath 
to  provoke  a  fitting  retort.  I  may  be  permitted, 
however,  to  use  a  sentiment  uttered  by  himself, 
to  show  how  he  has  condemned  himself.  In  the 
same  connection,  Mr.  Webster  advanced  the  fol 
lowing  idea:  "  I  know  no  passion  more  appropri 
ate  to  devils  than  the  passion  for  gross  misrepre 
sentation  and  libel."  Can  any  mortal  specify  a 
grosser  instance  of  "  gross  misrepresentation  and 
libel"  than  when  one  of  the  parties  to  a  public  dis 
cussion  has  uttered  an  obnoxious  sentiment,  and 
when  this  sentiment  has  met  with  very  general 
reprobation,  and  when,  in  the  progress  of  the  dis 
cussion,  the  guilty  party  professes  to  restate  the 
case,  that  he  should  then  expunge  the  false  sen 
timent  he  originally  advanced,  foist  a  trite  and 
common-place  one  in  its  stead,  and  then  apply 
a  criticism  made  on  the  suppressed  sentiment  to 
the  forged  one  ?  Is  it  not  as  palpable  a  case  of 
alteration,  as  to  change  the  date  of  a  note  of  hand 
in  order  to  take  it  out  of  the  statute  of  limita 
tions,  or  to  obliterate  the  description  of  the  prem 
ises  in  a  deed,  and  put  a  more  valuable  estate  in 
its  place  ?  This  proceeding  is  worse,  if  possible, 
than  the  former  "misrepresentation  and  libel" 
of  my  argument  and  myself,  contained  in  the 
Newburyport  letter.  But  the  subject  is  painful, 
and  I  leave  it. 

2-  .MR.   WEBSTER'S  RIDICULOUS    CLASSICAL 
BLUNDER. 

It  affords  me  great  relief  to  turn  from  this  to 
the  next  topic  in  Mr.  Webster's  Kennebec  epistle. 
The  severity  of  moral  judgment  which  must  be 
passed  upon  his  fabricated  quotation  and  the  use 
he  made  of  it,  is  here  turned  into  mirth  by  one  of 
the  most  ridiculous  classical  blunders,  that  has 
been  made  since  Lord  Kenyon  called  Julian 
"  the  Apostle." 

Mr.  Webster  says:  "In  classical  times,  there 
was  a  set  of  small  but  rapacious  critics,  denomi 
nated  captatores  verborum,  who  snatched  and 
caught  at  particular  expressions  ;  expended  their 
strength  oa  the  disjecta  membra  of  language ;  birds 
of  rapine  which  preyed  on  words  and  syllables," 
&c.,  &c. 

May  I  most  respectfully  ask  Mr.  Webster  on 
what  authority  he  says  there  was,  "in  classical 
times,"  any  such  "  set "  of  "  small  but  rapacious 
critics ?J  as  he  here  speaks  of, — or  exemplifies  ? 
In  my  ignorance,  I  have  always  supposed  the 
"  coptator "  of  classical  times,  to  be  a  kind  of 
"genius  "the  very  opposite  of  what  Mr.  Web 
ster  describes.  Horace,  Juvenal,  and  Livy,  rep 
resent  him  as  a  selfish,  sycophantic  gift-seeker, 
or  fortune-hunter  ;  not  a  twister,  torturer,  or  in 
terpolator  even,  of  words  and  phrases.  He  was 
rather  a  man  who  mamiged  to  get  his  living  out 
of  other  folks.  His  acts  and  tricks  served  the 
purpose  of  a  prehensile  organ,  such  as  the  finger- 
like  appendage  of  an  elephant's  proboscis,  by 
which  to  pick  other  men's  pockets.  The  accom 
panying  words,  descriptive  of  his  filchings,  were 


26 


not  torve,  ringi,  and  so  forth  ;  but  callide,  blande,  or 
llandicule.  If  captator  meant  a  cavilling,  cynical 
•critic,  then  captatrix  should  mean  a  scold,  a  vixen, 
or  virago ;  but  its  true  meaning  was  "  a  fawning 
gossip,"  or  "  mean  flatterer."  In  our  days,  the 
equivalent  or  fac  simile  of  the  classical  captator, 
would  be  the  man  who  coaxes  other  people  to 
accept  his  bills,  or  endorse  his  notes,  or  lend  him 
minute-money,  and  then  never  pays ;  or  the  man 
who  gets  life-settlements  for  supporting  class  in 
terests,  and  so  brings  odium  on  their  unquestion 
able  merits.  No  mistake  could  be  greater  than 
that  the  old  captatores  "  expended  their  strength 
on  the  disjecta  membra  of  language,"  or  "  gorged 
themselves  with  the  garbage  of  phrases,  chopped, 
dislocated,  and  torn  asunder,  by  themselves."  On 
the  contrary,  they  were  "  gentle  as  a  sucking 
dove."  Their  u  disjecta  membra"  rather  resem 
bled  outlawed  promissory  notes,  protested  drafts, 
overdrawn  bank  accounts,  unpaid  scores  to 
shopmen,  &c.  There  was  nothing  like  the  harpy 
about  them,  as  Mr.  Webster  seems  to  suppose,  in 
this  remarkable  description  of  his,  which  is  as 
rhetorically  unsavory  as  it  is  classically  untrue. 
What  malignant  sprite  could  have  been  at  Mr. 
Webster's  elbow  when  he  penned  this  wrathful 
paragraph,  and  suggested  to  him  a  word  preg 
nant  with  such  unutterable  associations ! 

So  far  from  there  being  any  "  set "  of  critics, 
in  classic  times,  denominated  and  known  as  capta- 
tores  verborum,  1  doubt  whether  even  the  abstract 
noun  "  captatio  "  occurs  half  a  dozen  times,  in  all 
the  classics,  in  connection  with  the  genitive  of  his 
pretended  appellation.  He  could  hardly  have 
made  a  greater  or  more  ludicrous  mistake.  It  is 
exceedingly  to  be  regretted,  after  the  numerous 
instances  we  have  lately  had  of  Mr.  Webster's 
bad  logic,  and  bad  humanity,  and  bad  discoveries 
of  natural  law,  that  he  should  now  offend  the 
classical  taste  of  the  country,  and  bring  discredit 
upon  the  New  England  colleges, by  his  bad  Latin. 
This  whole  anti-classical  paragraph  about  "  dis 
jecta  membra,"  and  "chopping,"  and  "gorging," 
and  'c  uncleanness,"  is  an  unclean  conception  of  his 
own ;  not  a  pure  but  an  impure  invention ;  not  in 
tellectual  but  epigastric  in  its  origin. 
3.  MR.  WEBSTER'S  ERRONEOUS  GEOGRAPHY, 
AND  HIS  FALSE  CITATION  OF  AUTHORITIES. 
Mr.  Webster's  geographical  statements  on  this 
subject  are  worthy  to  be  placed  side  by  side  with 
his  classical.  He  says,  the  extent  of  New  Mex 
ico,  north  and  south,  on  the  line  of  the  Rio 
Grande,  "  can  hardly  be  less  than  a  thousand 
miles."  This  makes  a  little  more  than  fourteen 
degrees  of  latitude.  Now,  as  its  northern  bound 
ary  is  in  42°,  its  southern  must  be  as  low  as  28°. 
This  is  four  degrees  below  El  Paso  del  Norte. 
Yet  Mr.  Webster,  on  the  13th  of  June  last,  de 
clared  himself  in  favor  of  fixing  the  northern 
boundary  of  Texas  at  or  near  El  Paso,  and  more 
than  four  degrees  of  latitude  north  of  what  he 
here  says  is  the  southern  boundary  of  New  Mex 
ico.  He  also  supported  that  part  of  the  Compro 
mise  bill  which  proposes  to  give  Texas,  not  only 
these  four  degrees  of  latitude,  but  money  also, 
for  taking  what,  as  he  now  says,  belongs  to  New 
Mexico  and  the  United  States.  How  can  these 
Tiews  stand  together  ? 


In  his  7th  of  March  speech,  Mr.  Webster  de 
clared  it  to  be  a  natural  impossibility  that  Africar 
slavery  could  ever  exist  "  in  California  or  Nev 
Mexico." — P.  42.  He  now  defines  the  southern 
boundary  of  New  Mexico.  It  can  hardly  be  less 
says  he,  than  "  a  thousand  miles"  from  the  forty 
second  degree  of  north  latitude.  This  places  i 
four  degrees  south  of  El  Paso.  He  is  in  favor  o; 
that  part  of  the  bill  which  gives  these  four  de 
grees  to  Texas.  According  to  him,  therefore 
should  Texas  get  possession  of  these  four  degreei 
of  what  is  now  New  Mexican  territory,  slaverj 
will  exist,  as  far  up  as  the  old  southern  boundar 
line  of  New  Mexico,  by  virtue  of  the  laws  o" 
Texas ;  but  beyond  this  line,  although  withil 
the  bounds  of  Texas,  it  will  not  exist,  becaus* 
forbidden  by  the  "  will  of  God."  Hence  the  ex 
traordinary  spectacle  will  be  exhibited,  of  th 
existence  of  slavery  coming  plump  up  to  th 
south  side  of  an  imaginary  line,  by  the  laws  o 
Texas,  while  on  the  north  side  of  the  said 
nary  line,  its  existence  will  be  cut  square  off  b;[ 
the  "  will  of  God,"  although  both  sides  are  with] 
in  the  same  political  jurisdiction.  This  will  bj 
a  miracle,  compared  with  which  the  supposed  mil 
raculous  preservation  of  the  Jewish  feature  anf 
complexion,  for  two  thousand  years,  will  be  urf 
worthy  to  be  mentioned.  It  remains  to  be  seeij 
however,  whether  this  miracle  will  be  vouchsafe! 
to  Mr.  Webster,  as  a  proof  of  the  Divine  favor. 

On  the  5th  of  June,  Mr.  Webster  voted  againfl: 
incorporating  the   "Proviso"  into  the  Govern 
ments  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  because  slaverj 
was  already  prohibited  thereby  "  Asiatic  seem 
ry"  and  the  law  of  "  physical  geography."     O| 
the  next  day,  too,  he  voted  against  the  followinj 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Walker :  "  And  ths. 
peon  servitude  is  forever  abolished  and  prohil| 
ited."     Whether  he  so  voted  because  this  specin 
of  slavery,  (which  is  an  existing  institution  at  tl| 
present  time.)  was  prohibited  by  "  scenery"  ai 
"  geography,"  does  not  appear. 

But  on  the  17th  of  June,  Mr.  Webster,  in  til 
Senate,  suggested  a  qualification  of  his  doctriij 
as  laid  down  on  the  7th  of  March,  viz:    tl 
"every  foot  of  territory  of  the  United  Stat 
has  a  fixed  character  for  slavery."     An  unc« 
tainty  as  to   the  boundary   line  between    Nel 
Mexico  and  Texas,  gave  rise  to  this  qualificitio 
'JLet  me  say  to  gentlemen,"  said  Mr.  Webste 
"  that  if  any  portion  which  they  or  I  do  not  bj 
lieve  to  be  Texas,  should  be  considered  to  beconj 
Texas,  then,  so  far,  that  qualification  of  my  r 
mark  is  applicable."—  (Cons:.  Glob?,,  31st  Cong.,  1 
sess,  p.  1239)     That  is,  if  the  Compromise  b: 
should  so  establish  the   boundary  line  betweil:' 
New  Mexico  and  Texas,  as  that  "any  portiijr| 
[of  New  Mexico]  which  they  or  I  [other  gentl|« 
men  or  Mr.  Webster,]  do  not  believe  to  be  Texf 
should  be  considered  to  become  Texas,"  then, 
Texan  territory,  it  might  lose  its  "  fixed  chara 
ter,"  and  become  slave  territory,  notwithstandii|^ 
the  "ordinance  of    Nature"  and  the  "will 
God."    But,  strange  to  say,  on  this  same  17th 
June,  the  Kennebec  letter  was   written,  whi 
carries  the  southern  boundary  of  Mexico,  on 
east  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  four  degrees  bel< 
El  Paso,  and,  of  course,  includes  all  that  re  " 
within  New   Mexico,  and  therefore  within  t 


2T 


ordinance  of  Nature"  and  the  "will  of  God!" 

0  that,  after  all,  he  acknowledges  that  the  "  or- 
nance  of  Nature"  and  the  "  will  of  God"  may 
e  overridden  by  the  laws  of  Texas. 

But  his  citation  of  authorities  is  among  the 
ost  surprising  of  all  his  aberrations  from  fact. 
te  first  quotes  Major  Gaines,  who,  as  he  says, 
traversed  a  part  of  this  country  during  the 
:ican  war."  By  "  this  country/7  I  suppose 
e  means  New  Mexico.  If  he  does  not  mean 

ew  Mexico,  then  the  citation  has  no  relation  to 

e  subject.  If  he  does  mean  New  Mexico,  then 
e  asserts  what  is  not  true.  Major  Gaines  did 
ot  go  within  four  or  five  hundred  miles  of 
"ew  Mexico,  during  the  war ;  and  if  the  quota- 
on  from  him  was  designed  to  create  the  belief 
lat,  in  what  Major  Gaines  said,  he  was  speaking 
?  New  Mexico,  it  was  as  gross  an  imposition  as 
»uld  well  be  made. 

The  next  citation  is  from  Colonel  Hardin.  Two 
ntences  are  taken.  I  transcribe  the  first  with 
tr.  Webster's  italics. 

"  The  whole  country  is  miserably  watered;  large  districts 
tve  no  water  at  all  The  streams  are  smalt,  and  at  great 
stances  apart.  One  day  we  marched  on  the  road  from 
onciova  to  Parras,  thirty-fivemiles, without  water,-  a  pretty 
vere  day's  march  for  infantry/'' 

And  what  country  does  this  describe? 

"  From  Monclova  to  Parras,  thirty-five  miles!" 
ys  Colonel  Hardin.  And  where  is  Monclova? 
way  down  south  in  Coahuila.  hundreds  of  miles 
pom  any  part  of  New  Mexico. 

I  submit  the  following  notes,  one  from  the 
olonel  of  the  regiment  in  which  Mr.  Gaines 
as  a  major;  and  the  other  from  a  major  in  the 
egiment  of  which  Mr.  Hardin  was  Colonel. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  June  27, 1850. 
SIR  :  In  reply  to  your  note  of  this  date.  I  state  th»t  Major 
aines  d  d  not,  during  the  Mexican  war,  travel  through  any 
irt  of  New  Mexico.     Major  Gaines  entered  Mexico  at  Ca- 
argo,  on  the  Rio  Grande ;  was  engaged  near  Saltillo,  until 

1  was  captured  and  taken  to  the  city  of  Mexico;  and  thence 
i  returnel  to  the  United  States,  by  the  way  of  Vera  Cruz. 

i  am,  sir,  very  icspectfully,  &c.? 

HUMPHREY  MARSHALL. 

P.  S.  In  reply  to  your  verbal  inquiry,  whefher  Colonel 
ardin  was  in  New  Mexico,  I  state,  thit  Colonel  Hardin 
as  attached  to  General  Wool's  command,  and  passed  from 
in  Antonio  de  Bexar,  by  the  Presidio  de  Rio  Grande,  Mon- 
ova,  and  Parras,  to  Saltillo:  so  that  he  did  not  enter  New 
^exiro.  H.  M. 

Hon.  H.  Mann. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  Jwne  28, 1850. 
SIR  :  In  reply  to  your  note  of  this  date,  I  have  the  honor  to 
iy,  that  I  was  an  officer  of  the  First  Regiment  Illinois 
olunteers,  commanded  by  Colonel  J.  J.  Hardin  during  the 
lexican  war,  and  that  during  the  time  Colonel  Hardin  was 
i  command  of  the  regiment,  he  was  not  in  New  Mexico, 
is  nearest  point  to  New  Mexico  was  Monclova  or  Parras, 
hich  was  several  hundred  miles  distant-  In  my  opinion, 
olone1  Hardin  was  never  in  New  Mexico;  he  certainly  was 
t  in  that  country  during  the  Mexican  war. 

Respectfully,  W.  A.  RICHARDSON. 

Now  what  possible  excuse  can  be  offered  for 

icse  misleading  citations?     What  information 

prould  be  given  of  the  soil  of  the  Genesee  valley 

f  New  York,  by  proving  the  condition  of  the 

ands  of  Cape  Cod  ? 

Mr.  Webster  next  quotes,  for  the  second  time, 
ae  letter  of  Hugh  N.  Smith,  Esq.  This  letter, 
f  taken  by  itself,  would  render  it  improbable,  in 
AT.  Smith's  opinion,  that  slavery  would  go  into 
Mexico ;  but  it  by  no  means  proves  the 


physical  impossibility  of  its  existence  there.  But 
what  different  language  has  Mr.  Smith  since  held 
in  his  Address  to  his  constituents?  I  will  quote 
a  few  passages  from  this  Address  to  show  its  gen 
eral  drift  and  intent : 

"  Your  State  [New  Mexico]  is  threatened  with  dismember 
ment,  and,  what  is  ytt  more  fatal,  the  introduction  of  sla 
very  into  its  bosom.1'— Page  i. 

"  The  most  formidable  part  of  this  combination  against  you 
is  that  which  originates  in  the  slave  interest.  It  not  only 
rallies  against  you  the  whole  slaveholding  South,  bat  all  the 
influence  of  selfish,  venal  and  ambitious  men  in  the  North, 
looking  to  speculations  in  discredited  bonds  and  land  job 
bing,  or  to  the  political  honors  which  the  combined  vote  of 
the  South  may  promise." — Page  2. 

"The  doctrine  of  the  slaveholding  States,  in  regard  to 
their  domestic  institutions,  is  non  intervention ;  but  with 
regard  to  yours,  it  is  instant  intervention,  to  set  at  nought 
the  prohibition  of  slavery,  which  ytu  brought  with  you  into 
the  Union,"  &c.— Ib. 

"  I  am  myself  a  native  of  the  section  [Mr.  Smith  is  a  Ken- 
tuckian]  whose  fate  I  deplore,  and  if  my  duty  did  not 
require,  I  would  be  the  last  to  advert  to  the  malady  that 
preys  upon  its  life.  *  *  *  *  The  schemes  of  those  who 
would  bind  you  to  the  destiny  of  the  slave  States,  render  it 
necessary  that  your  Representative  should  i  e  excluded  from 
the  Halle  of  Congress."— Page  3. 

"  You  are  left  prostrate,  that  Texas  may  dismember  and 
divide  New  Mexico,  and  subject  her  to  Southern  influence  ; 
that  negro  slavery  may  be  introduced  into  the  remnant  of 
territory  that  may  not  be  appropriated  to  Texas;  ana, 
finally,  thit  the  region  thus  securtd  to  Southern  policy  may 
become  the  stock  on  which  to  graft  new  conquests  from  Mex 
ico."— Page  4.  [These  are  Mr.  Smith's  italics.] 

"  The  first  step  in  this  process  is  to  supplant  the  funda 
mental  municipal  institutions  brought  bv  New  Mexico  with 
her  into  the  Union,  by  a  Territorial  Government  which,  by 
omitting  the  inhibition  against  slavery  in  the  Congressional 
act,  failing  to  reserve  that  contained  in  the  Mexican  code, 
and  preventing  the  people  of  the  Territory  f>om  legislating 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  from  re-enact  ing  the  pro 
hibitory  clause,  will  unquestionably  abolish  all  protections 
against  that  institution;  and,  indeed,  more  effectual  legisla 
tion  for  the  extension  of  slavery  into  New  Mexico  could  not 
be  enacted.7'— Page  5. 

"  The  whole  body  of  Southern  influence;  now  that  mining 
is  a  mania,  would  combine  to  pour  an  immense  colony  of 
slaves  into  New  Mexico.  The  consequence  of  this  would  be 
to  level  the  whole  population  of  Ntw  Mexico  with  the  new 
caste  brought  into  competition ;  and  yon,  tny  Mexican  fellow- 
citizens,  who  till  your  own  soil  with  yonr  own  hands,  would 
be  compelled  to  fly  your  country,  or  be  degraded  from  your 
equality  of  freemen,  forfeiting  your  hopes  of  rising  to  the 
new  elevation  promised  by  your  alliance  with  the  great  North 
American  Republic,  and  living  only  to  witness  the  ruin  of 
all  that  renders  life  desirable."— Page  6. 

This  is  what  Mr.  Smith  says,  when  he  writes 
home  to  his  own  people,  who  know  all  about  their 
own  country,  and  its  danger  of  being  invaded  by 
slavery. 

Now,  let  the  reader  suppose  himself  to  have 
read  from  Mr.  Smith's  Address,  as  much  more,  of 
the  same  kind  as  the  above,  and  then  say  how  far 
his  evidence  goes  to  sustain  Mr.  Webster's  dis 
covery,  that  slavery  can  never  go  into  New  Mex 
ico.  Mr.  Smith's  Address  has  been  published  for 
two  months ;  it  has  been  on  the  tables  of  mem 
bers,  published,  and  quoted  from  in  the  newspa 
pers,  and  yet  Mr.  Webster  continues  to  cite  Mr. 
Smith,  as  a  witness  in  his  favor.  What  influ 
ences  were  used  to  induce  Mr.  Smith  to  withhold, 
in  the  letter  to  Mr.  Webster,  the  facts  and  views 
which  he  has  so  clearly  brought  out  in  the  letter 
to  bis  constituents? 

The  next  and  last  citation  is  from  an  officer  at 
Santa  Fe.  No  name  is  given.  We  are  informed 
neither  of  the  character  of  the  author  nor  of  his 
means  of  information  ;  and  if  this  authority  is  as 
fallacious  and  deceptive  as  the  preceding,  it  is  a 
great  deal  worse  than  nothing.  It  would  be  like 


28 


the  testimony  sometimes  offered  in  court,  which 
ruins  the  cause  and  dishonors  the  counsel. 

4  MR.  WEBSTER'S  "DILIGKNT  READING." 

Mr.  Webster  says,  in  this  letter,  ';  I  have 
studied  the  geography  of  New  Mexico  diligently, 
having  read  all  that  I  could  find  in  print."  Ac 
cording  to  this  statement,  he  must  have  read  the 
letters  of  Mr.  James  S.  Calhoun,  Indian  agent  at 
Santa  Fe,  communicated  to  Congress  by  the  Presi 
dent,  on  the  231  of  January  last.  Speaking  of 
the  Navajoes,  a  tribe  of  7.000  Indians,  within  the 
limits  of  what  it  is  proposed  to  include  in  New 
Mexico,  Mr.  Calhoun  says,  that  it  is  "  not  a  rare 
instance  for  one  individual  to  possess  5,000  to 
10,000  sheep,  and  400  to  500  head  of  other  stock." 
(P.  184 )  That  their  country  "  is  rich  in  its  val 
leys,  rich  in  its  fields  of  grain,  and  rich  in  its 
vegetables  and  peach  orchards."  (P.  199.)  "  We 
encamped,"  says  he,  "  near  extensive  corn  fields, 
belonging  to  the  Navajoes."  (P.  197.)  Their  «  soil 
is  easy  of  cultivation,  and  capable  of  sustaining 
nearly  as  many  millions  of  inhabitants  as  they 
have  thousands."  (P.  202 )  A  country  owned  by 
one  tribe  capable  of  sustaining  nearly  7.000,000 
inhabitants,  and  yet,  as  Mr.  Webster  avers,  inac 
cessible  to  slavery,  on  account  of  its  barrenness  ! 

Speaking  of  the  Indians,  (Pueblos )  on  the  Rio 
Grande,  Mr.  Calhoun  says :  "  These  people  can 
raise  immense  quantities  of  corn  and  wheat,  and 
have  large  herds  of  sheep  and  goats.  The  grazing 
for  cattle  generally  is  superior."  (P.  206.)  Of  the 
more  western  Pueblos,  he  says,  they  have  "an 
extent  of  country  nearly  four  hundred  miles 
square;" — more  than  twenty  times  as  large  as 
Massachusetts ; — "  they  have  rich  valleys  to  cul 
tivate,  grow  quantities  of  corn  and  wheat,  and 
raise  vast  herds  of  horses,  mules,  sheep  and 
goats,  all  of  which  may  be  immensely  increased 
by  properly  stimulating  their  industry,  and  in 
structing  them  in  the  agricultural  arts."  (P.  215 ) 

I  might  cite  much  more  from  the  same  author 
ity,  to  the  same  effect ;  but  I  do  not  refer  to  Mr. 
Calhoun  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
agricultural  capabilities  of  New  Mexico,  as  of 
asking  why  Mr.  Webster  did  not  quote  from  this 
recent  official  work,  which  has  been  lying  on  the 
tables  of  members  for  mouths,  instead  of  quoting 
descriptions  from  military  officers  respecting  a 
country  which  he  well  knew  they  had  never  seen  ? 

There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  there  are 
wide  tracts  of  fertile  land  lying  between  the 
Sierra  de  los  Mimbres  and  the  Sierra  Nevada  on 
the  east  and  west,  and  the  32d  and  35uh  degrees 
of  latitude.  The  waters  at  the  mouth  of  a  river 
give  no  doubtful  indication  respecting  the  coun 
try  from  which  they  flow.  If  the  volume  be 
large,  we  know  it  must  drain  an  extensive  region  ; 
for  the  waters  of  a  great  river  cannot  be  supplied 
from  a  narrow  surface.  So  if  the  water  be  muddy, 
as  is  said  to  be  the  case  with  that  of  the  Colo 
rado,  it  is  proof  that  it  courses  through  a  dilu 
vial  country.  But  however  this  may  be.  all  ac 
counts  concur  in  representing  New  Mexico  to  be 
rich  in  mines;  and  mines  are  the  favorite  sphere 
for  slavery,  as  the  ocean  is  for  commerce. 

In  his  late  speech  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Davis  of 
Massachusetts  said  that  however  it  might  be  with 
regard  to  employing  slaves  in  New  Mexico  for 


raising  crops  of  corn  or  cotton,  there  was  still  oo< 
purpose  to  which  they  might  be  applied, — th 
most  odious  of  all  purposes, — to  raising  crops  froi 
themselves.      From  this  "Southern  Hive,"  th< 
markets  of  Texas  and  Louisiana  might  be  suj 
plied  with  "  vigintial "  crops  of  human  beings!) 
It  will  be  incumbent  on  Mr.  Webster  to  invenl 
some  new  "physical"  law  to  meet  this  astuta 
suggestion  of  his  colleague.    "  Asiatic  scenery 
will  hardly  answer  his  purpose  here. 

Within  the  limits  of  the  proposed  Territory  of. 
New  Mexico,  it  is  supposed  that  that  powerful 
and  comparatively  civilized  people,  the  Azt 
once  resided.  Can  any  person  for  a  moment 
lieve,  that  the  Aztecs  ever  grew  to  opulence  oi 
power,  in  any  such  sterile  and  desolate  region,  a* 
Mr.  Webster's  "diligent  reading"  portrays? 

But  what  must  satisfy  every  man  whose  blind- 
ness  is  not  of  the  soul  rather  than  of  the  senses^ 
is  the  fact,  that  the  people  of  New  Mexico,  iii 
the  Constitution  which  they  have  just  framed] 
have  embodied  a  prohibition  of  slavery  ir* 
their  fundamental  law.  Had  slavery  been  for-} 
bidden  there  by  any  "  Asiatic  scenery"  or  by  anyj 
"law  of  physical  geography,"  who  should  know  it 
better  than  they?  They  have  had  slaverjjj 
amongst  them  heretofore,  and  therefore  they* 
know  it  can  invade  them  again,  and  therefore 
they  forbid  it ;  and  in  the  choice  of  Senators  to 
Congress  under  the  new  organization,  should  anyj 
candidate  put  forward  the  vagary,  the  phantasm,! 
the  fatuity,  that  slavery  cannot  exist  among  them.! 
they  would  doubtless  deem  him  a  less  fit  subject! 
for  "the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  than  for  san-i 
itary  treatment. 

How  stands  the  evidence,  then,  on  the  question,' 
whether  "California  and  New  Mexico,"  fronn 
their  geology,  their  geography,  or  their  Asiatic- 
scenery,  are  inaccessible  or  not,  to  the  invasion! 
of  slavery  ?  It  is  well  known  that  the  war  with) 
Mexico  was  provoked,  and  violently  precipitated 
upon  the  country,  in  order  to  extend  the  domaint 
and  the  power  of  slavery.  In  negotiating  for  the- 
cession  of  California  and  New  Mexico,  the  Mex 
ican  Commissioners  strove  to  introduce  a  prohibi 
tion  against  slavery  into  the  treaty.  This  demon-i 
strates  that  they  thought  slavery  could  exist 
there.  Oar  Minister  declared  that  he  would  as 
sent  to  no  such  stipulation,  though  they  would1 
cover  all  the  land  a  foot  thick  with  gold.  This 
shows  the  tenacity  with  which  Mr.  Folk's  AdJ 
ministration,  and  all  its  Southern  friends,  adhered 
to  their  original  purpose  of  obtaining  new  terri 
tory  for  slavery.  In  view  of  this,  the  House  01 
Representatives  again  and  again  voted  to  applj- 
the  Proviso  to  whatever  territory  should  be  ob-> 
tained.  When  the  treaty  was  ratified,  many  ol 
the  leading  Senators  voted  against  the  clause  foi 
acquisition,  foreseeing  the  present  controversy 
and  hoping  to  avert  it.  Even  after  the  treaty  waf  | 
ratified,  leading  Southern  Whigs  in  the  House*) 
voted  against  paying  the  first  instalment  under  it  i 
still  clinging  to  the  hope  that  the  territory  might  i 
be  restored  to  Mexico,  and  this  ciuse  of  dissen-i 
sion  withdrawn.  During  all  this  period,  fourteeaj 
of  the  Northern  Legislatures,  many  of  thenci 
again  and  again,  voted  that  the  Proviso  should  b«J 
applied.  The  present  six  months'  contest,  in  th< 
Senate  and  House,  between  the  North  and  tb« 


29 


^South,  is  conducted  solely  on  the  conviction  that 
slavery  may  exist  in  the  Territories ;  and  that  it 
will  or  will  not  exist  there,  according  as  the  la-w 
allows  or  forbids  it.  Otherwise,  it  would  be  the 
most  nonsensical  and  nugatory  discussion  ever 
engaged  in  out  of  a  lunatic  asylum.  Once  make  it 
as  clear  as  any  law  of  physical  nature,  that  sla 
very  can  never  transgress  the  bounds  of  the  new 
territories  ;  and  there  is  not  a  man  so  demented 
that  he  would  any  longer  contend  either  for  the 
Proviso,  or  against  it.  Mr.  Webster  was  always 
of  the  same  opinion,  and  has  declared  it  a  hun 
dred  times.  In  his  Marshfield  speech,  September 
1,  1843,  he  said,  u  He  [General  Cass]  will  surely 
have  the  Senate,  and  with  the  patronage  of  the 
Government,  with  every  interest  that  he  as  a 
Northern  man,  can  bring  to  bear,  cooperating 
with  every  interest  that  the  South  can  bring  to 
bear,  we  cry  safety  before  we  are  out  of  the 
woods,  if  we  fed  that  there  is  no  danger  [of  slavery] 
as  to  these  new  Territories,"  Up  to  the  7  fch  March, 
1850,  then,  when  he  abandoned  all  the  doctrines 
and  sentiments  he  had  ever  before  advocated  on 
this  subject,  and  when  he  incurred  the  public, 
hearty  approval  and  encomiums  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
by  his  moral  agility,  in  springing,  at  one  leap, 
from  Massachusetts  to  South  Carolina; — until 
this  time,  Mr.  Webster  had  always  held,  that  sla 
very  would  invade  the  new  Territories;  if  not 
barred  out  of  them  by  positive  law.  And  what 
would  be  still  more  remarkable,  if  the  doctrines 
of  the  7^h  of  March  speech  had  the  least  shadow 
I  of  soundness  in  them,  is,  that  they  have  now  been 
I  before  the  public  for  more  than  four  months,  and, 
I  so  far  as  I  know,  not  a  single  Southern  man  has 
I  been  converted  by  them.  Are  not  Mr.  Benton, 
I  Mr.  Mason,  Col.  Davis,  and  thousands  of  others, 
I  individually,  as  good  judges,  or  as  good  witnesses, 
I  as  he  is  ?  Since  the  speech,  the  people  of  New 
I  Mexico  have  prohibited  slavery  in  their  Consti- 

•  tution.  because  they  knew  it  to  be  possible  among 
I  them.  Before  the  speech,  California  did  the  same, 
land  for  the  same  reason.    The  Nashville  Con- 
Ivention  has  just  resolved  "  That  California  is  pe- 
Iculiarly  adapted  for  slave  labor,  and  that  if  the 
i  tenure  of  slave  property  was  by  recognition  of 

•  this  kind  secured  in  that  part  of  the  country 
| south  of  36°  30',  it  would  in  a  short  time  form 
lone  or  more   slaveholding  States,  to  swell  the 
I  number  and   power  of  those  already  in  exist- 
' fence."      Even  those  who  seek  to  apologize  for 
|Mr.   Webster,   avow  at  the    same    time,    their 
H  disbelief   in    his    doctrine.      Such  is    the    evi- 
jjlence,  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other,  as  to 

.Jthe  possibility  or  impossibility  of  slavery  in  the 

.fj Territories.     Mr.  Webster  is  against  the  whole 

Hfforld  and  the  whole  world  is  against  him,  and  this, 

l:oo,  oa  a  question  already  settled  by  history  and 

,'  Ijxperience.    He  is  just  as  much  to  be  believed, 

;  4«3  a  man  who  looks  up  into  the  clear  midnight 

\.  ]  sky,  and   denies  the  existence  of  the  heavenly 

:4iost,  while  all  the  stars  of  the  firmament  are 

jjhining  down  into  his  eyes. 

To  increase  the  overwhelming  proof  against 
;;   I  Mr.  Webster,  I  add  the  following : 
j«;~l  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  June  1, 1850. 

•:•'•  \Jon.  S.  R.  Thurston,  Delegate  from  Oregon. 
•':  -  \   DBAR  SIR:  In  a  speech  delivered  by  700,  in  the  House  of 
/;  >hepresentatives  in  March  last,  I  underst>od  you  to  say  that 

sl 


you  had  been  in  the  valley  of  tfee  Great  Salt  Lake,  and  that 
you  were  acquainted,  from  personal  o>  serration,  with  a  large 
part  of  the  territory  of  California.  Will  yr>u  be  so  good  as 
to  give  me  your  opinion,  and  the  reasons  for  tntertaining  it, 
of  the  probability  or  improbability  of  the  introduction  of 
slave  labor  into  any  part  of  the  territory  recently  acquired 
by  the  United  States  from  Mexico;  provided  such  introduc 
tion  be  not  prohibited  by  law  ? 

I  wish  to  obtain  your  opinion  in  regard  to  other  hinds  of 
labor,  as  well  as  agricultural ;  because,  as  it  seems  to  me,  a 
most  unwarrantable,  if  not  a  most  disingenuous  attempt  has 
been  made,  to  lead  the  public  to  believe  that  no  form  of  slave 
l«bor  will  ever  be  introduced  there,  because,  possibly,  or 
probably,  it  may  not  be  introduced  for  agricultural  pur- 


A  reply  at  your  earliest  convenience,  will  much  oblige, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

HORACE  MANN. 

"WASHINGTON,  June  10,  1850. 
Hon  Horace  Mann : 

I  received  a  note  from  you  some  days  ago,  making  certain 
inquiries,  but  which,  up  to  this  time,  I  have  been  unable  to 
answer.  I  desire  to  take  no  part  in  the  question  now  dividing 
the  country ;  but  as  you  have  asked  my  judgment  upon  a 
matter  which  appears  to  be  a  disputed  point,  1  cannot,  con 
sistently  with  the  law  of  courtesy,  refuse  you  an  answer. 
That  answer  will  be  in  conformity  *ith  what  I  have  fre 
quently  said,  heretofore,  in  private  conversation  with  gentle 
men  on  this  subject 

The  point  of  inquiry  seems  to  be,  whether  slave  labor 
could  bs  profitably  employed  in  Oregon,  Califoinia,  Utah, 
and  New  Mex'co.  If  the  nature  of  the  climate  and  resources 
of  these  countries  are  such,  as  to  furnish  a  profitable  market 
for  slave  labor,  it  appears  to  be  conceded,  on  a' 1  sides,  that  it 
would  be  introduced,  if  left  free  to  seek  profitable  invest 
ment,  like  othsr  capital.  The  whole  po'nt  at  issue,  then,  is 
dependent  as  it  is  conceived,  ujon  the  determination  of  the 
first  point  of  inquiry.  Hence,  to  that  point,  only,  it  is  neces 
sary  for  me  to  confiue  my  answer. 

I  need  not  remind  }  ou  of  the  law  regulating:  the  investment 
of  capital.  It  will  always  go  where,  under  all  circumstances, 
it  will  yield  the  greatest-return  to  the  owner.  Upon  this 
principle  I  am  very  clear,  that  slave  labor,  if  unrestricted, 
could  be  employed  in  Oregon,  with  at  least  double  the  profit 
to  the  owner  of  the  slave  that  it  now  yields  in  any  State  of 
the  Union.  I  am  uninformed  as  to  the  usual  price  of  slave 
labor  in  the  States,  but  the  price  paid  to  Indians  in  Oregon 
during  the  past  year,  for  labor,  has  ranged  from  two  to  three 
dollars  per  day.  Domestic  negro  servants,  whether  male  or 
female,  who  understand  the  business  of  housework,  would 
command,  readily,  five  or  six  hundred  dollars  a  year.  1  rec 
ollect  well,  that  there  was  a  mulatto  man  on  b«ard  the  vessel 
in  which  I  took  passage  from  Oregon  to  San  Francis '0,  who 
was  paid  one  hundred  and  e:ghty  dollars  per  month  for  his 
services  as  cook  I  will  not  stop  to  particularize  further,  in 
regard  f>  the  inducements  Oregon  would  offer  to  unrestricted 
slave  labor,  but  will  simply  add,  that  a  very  large  number 
of  slaves  might  now  be  employed  in  Oregon  at  annual  wages 
sufficiently  large  to  pnrchase  their  freedom.  1  think,  there 
fore,  that  the  point  is  settled  so  far  as  Oregon  is  cone*  rned  ; 
and  that  slave  la^or,  if  it  had  been  left  free  to  seek  profitable 
employment,  would  readily  find  its  way  to  that  Territory. 

As  to  California,  I  am  equally  clear.  California  will  always 
be  a  mining  country,  and  wages  will  range  hipb.  At  present, 
slave  labor  in  California  would  be  more  profitable  than  in 
Oregon.  And  I  have  always  beeo  of  the  opinion,  that  wher 
ever  there  is  a  mining  country,  if  not  in  a  climate  unco^gen- 
ial  to  slave  labor,  that  species  of  labor  would  be  profitable. 
That  it  would  be  in  the  California  mines  is  evident  A  good 
able-bodied  slave  wonld  have  commanded,  in  California,  dur 
ing  the  past  year,  from  fight  to  ten  hundred  dollars  per  an 
num.  When  it  is  recollected  that  one  hundred  dollars  per 
annum,  upon  an  average,  is  considered  a  good  compensation 
for  their  labor  in  the  houthern  States,  it  is  idle,  in  my  j  udg- 
ment,  to  contend  that  slaves  would  not  be  carried  to  the  Cal 
ifornia  market,  if  protected  by  law. 

The  greatest  impediment  which  white  labor  has  to  encoun 
ter  in  the  mines,  is  the  intensity  of  the  heat,  and  the  preva 
lence  of  bilious  disease.  The  one  is  almost  insufferable, 
while  the  other  is  pestilential.  Against  both  of  these  the 
negro  is  almost  proof.  Now,  while  white  labor  is  so  high,  it 
is  evident  that  no  one  can  hire  a  white  laborer,  except  at  a 
rate  that  would  consume  his  profit.  Not  so  with  negro  libor. 
That  species  of  labor  might  be  obta'ned  for  half  the  amount 
wlmh  you  would  have  to  pay  for  white  labor  The  result 
would  be  a  profit  alike  to  the  hirer  and  seller  of  slave  labor. 
There  ia  no  doubt,  in  my  judgment,  that  almost  any  number 


30 


of  slaves  might  be  hired  out  in  California,  were  the  whites 
willing  to  allow  it,  at  from  eight  to  ten  hundred  dollars  a 


ppecies  of  service  be  protected  in  California,  it  would  rueh 
to  the  Pacific  in  almost  any  quantity 

Let  us  next  turn  our  attention  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 
I  have  no  doubt,  from  what  knowledge  I  have  of  those  coun 
tries,  that  they  will  turn  out  to  be  fi'.led  with  the  richest 
mines.  I  clip  the  followirg  from  a  iccent  paper,  containing 
the  news  from  Texas  and  Chihuahua. 

"  Mr.  James  was  informed,  by  Major  Neighbours  and  Mr. 
Lee  Vining,  that  they  had  been  shown  by  Major  Stein,  some 
gold  washed  out  by  his  troops,  on  the  Gila  river,  in  a  short 
excursion  to  that  stream. 

'  It  is  reported  that,  at  the  copper  mines  above  El  Paso 


former  views  without  self-impeachment  and  self- 
conviction.  Let  passages  from  the  two  speeches 
be  placed  side  by  side,  to  show,  not  their  identity  7 
but  their  utter  irreconcilability. 


MARCH  7, 1850. 
"  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly 
understood,  to-day,  that,  ac 
cording  to  my  view  of  the 
matter,  this  Government  is 
solemnly  pledged  by  law  and 
contract  to  create  new  States 
out  of  Texas,"  &c.— P.  42. 

The  first  quotation  only  asserts  a  "  power  "  in 
to  create  new  States :  the  last  affirms  an 
' 


MARCH  23,  1848. 
[A  passage  quoted  by  him 
self.] 

"  It  shall  be  in  the  power 
of  Congress  hereafter  to 
make  four  other  new  States 
out  of  Texan  territory." 


there  are  about  one  hundred  tons  of  "pure  copper  lying  upon     ~""*4         ' "  r"T 1" - "  7"  7" ' ~,  t . ~jn    "    ^ow 
the  ground.    This  had  been  got  out  by  Mexicans,  and  ab±n-     obligation,      by  law  and  contract     to  do  SO.  HOW 


doned  when  attacked  by  Indians 


could  Mr.  Webster  have  expected  that  this  broad 


"  There  are  are  at  El  Paso,  in  the  hands  of  different  per-     distinction  between  power  and   duty,  between   op- 

&t^tUSSMimr^tt%«&±    ,wn  and  ,H;fm<,«,  could  escape  the  atteation  of 


lands,  and  protection  from  Indians,  only  a  short  time  would 
elapse  before  all  these  mines  would  be  well  worked,  and  we 
would  have  large  quantities  of  metal  seeking  a  market 
through  this  place." 

And  if  you  consult  Fremont's  map,  printed  by  order  of  the 
Senate  in  1848,  you  will  find,  near  the  source  of  one  of  the 
branches  of  the  Gila  river,  " copper  and  gold  mines"  laid 
down.  And  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  it  will  turn  out 
that  the  Mormons  are  in  possession  of  the  richest  kind  of 
mines,  east  of  the  Sierra  Nevada.  It  is  known,  too,  that  sil 
ver  and  copper  mines  have,  for  many  years,  been  worked  in 
New  Mexico;  and  I  am  informed  by  Hugh  N.  Smith,  Esq., 
that  there  are  in  that  Territory,  gold,  silver,,  copper,  l^ad, 
and  zinc  mines  of  the  richest  quality,  and  that  the  reason 
why  they  have  not  latterly  been  worked  more  extensively  is 
that  it  is  prevented  by  the  ircursions  of  the  Indians.  He  is 
of  the  opinion,  ami  he  is  borne  out  by  what  history  we  can 


his  readers  1 

Bat  there  is  another  discrepancy  or  contradic 
tion  still  more  remarkable : 


MARCH  23, 1848. 
"  It  shall  be  in  the  power 
of    Congress    hereafter    to 
make/owr  other  new  States 
out  of  Texan  territory." 


MARCH  7,  1850. 

" the  guaranty  is, 

that  new  States  shall  be 
made  out  of  it,  and  that  such 
States  as  are  tormed  out  of 
that  portion  of  Texas  lying 
south  of  36  deg.  30  min.  may 
come  in  as  slave  States  to 
tie  number  of  four,  in  addi 
tion  to  the  Stute  then  in  ex 
istence."— P.  29. 


The  first  speech   speaks  of  the  power  of  Con- 
get  on  the  subject,  that  when  these  mines  shall  come  to  be     gregs  but  the  last  of  the  obligation  of  Congress, 

explored,  their  wealth  will  turn  out  to  be  enormous     When     *  '    jL:*.  nat*r  Qfatoa  nnt-  nf  TVvin  tprritnrv  •  thp 

to  admit  new  btates  out  ot  ritory  ,  II 

but  the 

]a8t  of  the  "  guaranty  "  to  admit  "  slave  States 
t  tfa  ^3^^  Of  four."  Yet  the  first  speech  is 

possession  of  mineral  wealth  so  vast,  that  ages  will  not  be        .      ,  ,        ,        .. 

able  to  measure  its  extent.  And  when  these  mines  shall  be-  cited,  to  men  who  can  read  and  write,  as  identical 

"in  legal  construction  and  effect"  with  the  last. 
The  motto  under  which  Danton  attempted  to 


you  have  once  cast  your  eye  over  that  countrj  lying  west  of     W  »uuu  -"  ;-  »£ 

the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  east  of  the  Sierra  Nevada,  and     first  speaks  of  "  four  Other  new  btates ;" 
are  informed  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  gold-bearing  region,     ]a8t  of  the  "  guaranty  "   to  admit    "  slai 


you  at  once  become  convinced  that  the  United  States  is  in 


gin  to  be  developed,  and  their  unqu  stinnable  richness 
known,  population  will  set  that  way,  attended  with  the  usual 
consequences,  high  prices,  and  a  demand  for  labor.  If  slave 


carry  himself  through  his  bloody  career,  was  : 
"  Eaudace,  Vaudace^toujoursPaudace.'' — "  Audacity, 
audacity,  always  audacity." 

But  what  else  did  Mr.  Webster  say,  in  his 
speech  of  the  23d  of  March,  1848  ?  Referring  to 
the  debate  which  took  place  in  December,  1845, 
on  the  final  act  for  admitting  Texas,  Mr.  Web 
ster  said  :  "  And  I  added,  that  while  I  held,  with 
as  much  faithfulness  as  any  citizen  of  the  coun 
try,  to  all  the  original  arrangements  and  compro 
mises  of  the  Constitution  under  which  we 
live,  I  never  could,  and  1  never  should,  bring 
myself  to  be  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  any 
States  into  the  Union  as  slaveholding  States."* 
This  is  what  Mr.  Webster  reports  himself  to 
have  said  when  the  final  vote  on  the  admission  of 
Texas  was  immediately  to  be  taken,  and  when  he 
commenced  his  speech  by  saying.  "I  am  quite 
.  -,  aware,  Mr.  President,  that  the  resolution  will 
construction  and  effect  of  the  resolutions  "  for  ad-  pa8!,  »l_meaning  the  resolution  for  the  admission 


labor  is  like  other  capital,  if  it  will  go  where  it  is  best  pa?d, 
then  we  have  a  right  to  say  it  will  seek  these  mines,  and  be 
come  a  part  of  the  producing  capital  of  the  country  where 
those  mines  are  located.  That  these  whole  regions  ape  filled 
with  rich  mines,  is  little  less  than  certain,  and  that  they  can 
be  profitably  worked  by  slave  labor  is  sure.  Hence,  were  I  a 
Southern  man  and  my  property  invested  in  slaves,  I  should 
consider  the  markets  of  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and  California, 
for  slave  labor,  worthy  of  an  honorable  contest  to  secure. 
I  am,  sir,  with  due  consideration,  yours,  truly, 

SABVJEL  R.  THURSTON. 

5.    CONTRADICTION  IN  MR.  WEBSTER'S 

SPEECHES. 

The  Kennebec  letter  has  another  most  extra 
ordinary  and  discreditable  passage.  It  is  near 
the  close.  Mr.  Webster  quotes  from  a  speech 
delivered  by  him  in  the  Senate,  March  23,  1848, 
says  it  was  published  in  newspapers  and  circu 
lated  in  pamphlet  form,  and  that  that  speech  con 
tained  the  same  doctrines  in  regard  to  the  "  legal 


mitting  Texas,  as  are  contained  in  the  speech  of 
the  7th  of  March.  He  says  nobody  complain 
ed  then,  and  he  wonders  that  anybody  should 
complain  now. 

It  is  very  remarkable  that  such  a  man  as  Mr. 
Webster  should  furnish,  in  the  very  quotation 
which  he  offers^  the  means  of  utterly  confuting 
the  assertion  which  he  makes.  I  suppose  this  can 
be  accounted  for  only  on  the  ground,  that  he  now 
occupies  a  position  so  antagonistic  to  that  which 
he  has  abandoned  that  he  cm  hardly  refer  to  his 


of  Texas.  Mr.  Webster's  -never  could  and 
never  should  "  covered  the  exact  case  of  the  then 
contemplated  future  slaveholding  States  to  be 
formed  out  of  Texas.  While  in  the  broadness  of 
its  terms  it  embraced  all  slaveholding  States, 
whensoever,  or  whencesoever  they  might  come,  it 
had  special  and  pointed  application  to  any  slave 
State  to  be  thereafter  formed  out  of  Texan  ter 
ritory. 

*  Coug.  Globe,  1st  session  30th  Congress  p.  533. 


31 


la  the  same  speech  of  December  22,  1845,  Mr. 
Webster  spoke  as  follows : 

"It  may  be  said  that  according  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution,  new  States  are  to  be  admitted  on  the  same 
footing  as  the  old  States.  It  may  be  eo  ;  but  it  does  not  fol 
low  at  all  from  that  provision  that  every  territory  or  por 
tion  of  country  may  at  pleasure  establish  slavery,  and  then 
pay  we  will  become  a  portion  of  the  Union;  and  will  bring 
with  us  the  principles  which  we  may  have  thus  adopted,  and 
must  be  received  on  the  same  footing  as  the  old  States.  It- 
will  always  be  a  question  whether  the  old  States  have  not  a 
right,  (and  I  think  they  have  the  clearest  right,)  to  require 
that  the  State  coming  into  the  Union  should  come  in  upon 
an  equality  ;  and.  if  the  existence  of  slavery  be  an  impedi 
ment  to  coming  in  on  an  equality,  then  the  State  proposing 
to  come  in  should  be  required  to  remove  that  inequality 
by  abolishing  slavery,  or  take  the  alternative  of  being  ex 
cluded." 

He  also  said,  in  the  same  speech,  "  I  agree  with 
the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts." 

And  what  was  this  "  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts"?  Among  many 
other  things  equally  decisive,  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature,  on  the  -26th  of  March,  1845,— and,  of 
course,  long  after  the  annexation  resolutions  had 
been  passed, — declared  as  follows : 

"  And  whereas  the  consent  of  the  Executive  and  Legisla 
tive  departments  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  been  given,  by  a  resolution  passed  on  the  27th  of  Feb 
ruary  last,  to  the  adoption  of  preliminary  measures  to  ac 
complish  this  nefarious  project,  [the  admis-ion  of  Texas, 
with  the  stipulation  to  admit  four  more  States  out  of  its 
territory  ;]  thet  efore,  be  it 

" Resolved,  That  Massachusetts  hereby  refuses  to  ac 
knowledge  the  act  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
authorizing  the  admission  of  Texas,  as  a  legal  act,  in  any 
way  binding  her  from  using  her  utmost  exertions  in  co 
operation  with  other  States,  by  every  lawful  and  constitu 
tional  measure,  to  annu1.  its  conditions,  and  defeat  its  ac 
complishment. 

"  Resolved,  That  no  Territory  hereafter  applying  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Union,  as  a  State,  should  be  admitted  with 
out  a  condition  that  dome°tic  slavery  should  be  utterly  ex 
tinguished  within  its  borders,  and  Massachusetts  denies 
the  validity  of  any  compromise  whatsoev*  r,  that  may  have 
been,  or  that  may  hereafter  be,  entered  into  by  persons  in 
the  Government  of  the  Union,  intended  to  preclude  tAeu- 
ture  application  of  such  a  condition  by  the  people,  acfcng 
through  their  representatives  in  the  Congress  ot  the  United 
States." 

Such  were  the  opinions  which  Mr.  Webster 
then  expressed,  and  such  the  resolutions  of  the 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  with  which  he 
agreed.  Yet  he  now  professes  to  wonder  that 
anybody  can  see  any  difference  between  the  doc- 
tines  of  those  speeches  and  resolutions,  and  those 
of  his  speech  delivered  on  the  7th  of  March.* 

Prof.  Stuart,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  "  Conscience  and 
the  Constitution,"  pp.  78-9,  fteps  in  to  defend  Mr  Web 
ster's  position  that  we  are  bourd,  by  contract  with  Texas, 
to  admit  from  her  territory,  "  slave  States  to  the  number  of 
four;"  and  he  incidentally  refers  to  and  combats  my  views 
on  this  subject. 

I  respectfully  submit  to  the  reverend  ard  learned  Profes 
sor  a  single  consideration,  which  I  trust  will  convince  him 
that  I  am  not  in  error. 

For  argument's  sake,  admit  the  contract  with  Texas  to 
ba  unimpeachable;  although,  if  it  be  so,  I  see  not  why  any 
one  Congress  may  not  absorb  and  exhaust  all  the  power  to 
admit  new  States,  which  the  Constitu  ion  cor  tain?,  by  mak 
ing  contracts,  for  centuries  to  come,  for  all  the  new  States 
that  shall  be  admitted;  and  for  all  the  applications  for 
admission  that  shall  be  rejected.  But,  admitting  the  va- 
lidi'y  of  the  Texan  contract,  what  does  it  purport?  That 
"  new  States,"  "  not  exceeding  four,"  "  may  lie  formed  out 
of  the  territory  thereof."  Those  south  of  3<>  (leg.  20  min. 
may  be  slave;  that,  or  those,  north  of  36  dtg.  30  min.  shall 
be  free ;  the  whole,  '•  notexceeding  four."  Here,  then,  is  an 
executory  and  mutual  contract.  It  is  executory;  because 
it  is  not  to  be  executed  at  the  time  of  making,  but  infnturo. 


6.  MISSTATEMENT  OF  FACT,  IN  REGARD  TO 
FUGITIVE  SLAVES. 

Mr.  Webster  says  that,  previous  to  writing  his 
Newburyport  letter,  he  made  "diligent  inquiry,'' 
of  members  of  Congress  from  New  England,  t« 
ascertain  how  many  arrests  of  fugitive  slaves  had 
been  made  in  their  time  ;  and  he  adds,  "  the  result 
of  all  I  can  learn  is  this:  No  seizure  of  an  al 
leged  slave  has  ever  been  made  in  Maine." 

Now,  two  such  cases  have  happened  in  the 
State  of  Maine.  One  took  place  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  State,  about  1835  or  >3G.  The  other 
happened  at  cr  near  Thomaston,  a  little  later. 
In  this  latter  case,  the  fugitive  came  to  Maine  in 
a  Thomaston  vessel,  whose  master  was  afterwards 
demanded  as  a  fugitive  from  justice.  This  de 
mand  gave  rise  to  a  prolonged  correspondence,  I 
think,  with  no  less  than  three  Governors  of 
Maine.  This  correspondence  was  extensively 
circulated  through  the  newspapers,  or  referred 
to  by  them,  and^  it  would  seem  hardly  possible 
that  Mr.  Webster  should  not  have  seen  it.  Since 
the  Newburyport  letter  was  published,  this  mis- 
statement  of  fact  has  been  noticed  in  the  Maine 
newspapers,  yet  no  retraction  is  made.  The  mis- 
statement  is  allowed  to  be  spread  over  the  whole 
country,  uncorrecttd  by  its  author.  Mr.  Web 
ster  then  adds,  "  No  seizure  of  an  alleged  fugitive 
slave  has  ever  been  made  in  Vermont."  Tradition, 
and,  as  I  believe,  authentic  history,  contradict 
Mr.  Webster  here.  It  is  said  by  "  members  of 
Congress"  from  Vermont  that  an  alleged  fugitive 
was  carried  before  Judge  Harrington  of  Vermont 
in  1807,  and  on  his  being  asked  what  evidence 
would  satisfy  him  that  the  person  was  a  slave,  he 
replied,  ':  A  bill  of  sale  from  Almighty  God." 

But  even,  if  these  statements  of  Mr.  Webster, 
with  regard  to  the  New  England  States,  were  all 
true,  it  would  avail  him  nothing  ;  for,  in  the  eye 
of  patriotism,  it  matters  not  where  such  seizures 
are  made.  I  refer  to  this,  only  to  show  that  Mr. 
Webster  is  not  to  be  relied  upon  in  these  matters, 
either  for  the  accuracy  of  his  original  positions,, 
or  for  a  retraction  of  them,  when  their  error  is 
pointed  out  by  the  public  press.  I  wish  not  to  be 
understood,  on  this  particular  point,  as  imputing  to 
Mr.  Webster  an  intentional  misstatement;  be 
cause  he  accompanied  his  original  statement  with 
a  salvo.  He  confessed,— and  he  is  entitled  to  the 
full  benefit  of  the  confession, — that  his  information 


It  is  mutual ;  because,  for  Texas,  and  for  the  one  or  more 
slave  Statefi,  south  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  there  are  to  be  one  or 
more  free  States,  north  of  it. 

Wow,  the  principle  is  FO  clear  that  1  think  no  ore  will  fora 
moment  dispute  it,  that  when  an  executory  and  mutual  con 
tract  is  to  I  e  executed  say  at  four  different  times,  each  pre 
ceding  act  of  execution  must  be  such  as  ro  allow  of  the  ul 
timate  execution  of  the  whole.  Neither  the  first,  second, 
nor  third  act  of  execution,  must  be  so  executed  as  to  render 
the  fourth  impossible.  Neither  the  first,  second,  nor  third 
act  must  be  so  executed  in  favor  of  either  of  the  parties,  as 
to  render  the  execution  of  the  fourth,  in  favor  of  the  other 
party,  impossible.  But  if  Texas  can  have  "  slave  States  to 
the  number  of  four,"  formed  in  succession  out  of  her  terri 
tory,  then,  as  the  whole  number  to  be  formed  is  not  to  ex 
ceed  "  four,"  there  can  be  no  free  State  formed,  under 
the  alleged  contract. 

It  is  not  within  my  know1  edge  that  such  an  interpretation 
of  this  supposed  contract  was  ever  suggested  by  any  Texan 
citizen,  or  by  any  Southern  man.  I  suppose  it  to  have  beer* 
advarcedj^trsf  by  a  Northern  Senator;  and  seconded  first, 
by  a  Northern  Divine. 


32 


might  not  be  ;i  entirely  accurate,7''  though  he  sup 
posed  it  not  to  be  "  materially  erroneous.''  It  is 
"  materially  erroneous ;"  and  though  one  error 
has  been  exposed  in  the  Maine  papers,  he  does 
not  rectify  it.  Possibly,  he  does  not  know  it. 
7.  FURTHER  MISSTATEMENT  OF  FACT. 

While  holding  Massachusetts  up  to  reproach 
for  "  growing  fervid  on  Pennsylvania  wrongs," 
Mr.  Webster  draws  succor  and  encouragement 
from  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  especially  from 
the  Friends  of  Pennsylvania.  He  says  that  they 
remain  "  of  sound  and  disposing  minds  and  memo 
ries;"  and  he  contrasts  their  wisdom  and  compo 
sure  with  the  "  vehement  and  empty  declarations, 
the  wild  and  fantastic  conduct  of  both  men  and 
women  which  have  so  long  disturbed  and  so 
much  disgraced  the  Commonwealth"  of  Massa 
chusetts.  He  then  adds,  "I  am  misled  by  au 
thority  which  ought  not  to  mislead,  if  it  be  not 
true,  that  that  great  body  approves  the  sentiments 
to  which  I  gave  utterance  on  the  f^.oor  of  the  Sen 
ate."  i  will  now  shuw  that  this  aHeged  approval  by 
the  Friends,  though  worthy  of  any  price  but  truth, 
was  too  dearly  bought. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Friends  are  divided 
into  two  great  denominations.  Each  has  its  Pe 
riodical,  one  now  in  its  eighth,  the  other  in  its 
fourth  year.  In  the  numbers  published  since  the 
appearance  of  the  Newburyport  letter,  both  these 
periodicals  do  not  "approve,"  bat  repudiate  and 
denounce  the  sentiments  to  which  Mr.  Webster 
gave  utterance  "on  the  floor  of  the  Senate." 

The  Friend's  Intelligencer  deals  at  length  with 
Mr.  Webster's  "sentiments,"  on  the  ':  Fugitive 
Slave  Bill ;"  on  the  legislation  of  the  North  for  the 
protection  of  its  own  citizens ;  on  his  pseudo-discov 
eries  in  "  physical  geography  ;"  and  on  the  "  legal 
construction  and  effect"  of  the  Texas  resolu 
tions  ;  and  it  condemns  them  all. 

The  Friend's  Review  dissents  not  less  positively 
from  Mr.  Webster's  positions ;  and  both  call  him 
severely  to  account  for  the  defamation  of  them 
selves,  which  his  letter  implies. 

On  his  "sentiments"  respecting  fugitive  slaves, 
the  "  Review"  observes  that  they  have  yet  to  learn 
"  that  that  part  of  his  speech  was  approved  by 
any  member  or  professor  of  the  society." 

I  wish  I  had  space  to  quote  from  these  able  ar 
ticles,  but  must  forbear. 

John  G.  Whittier,  E-?q  .  speaking  for  the  Qua 
kers  of  New  England,  gives  "a  peremptory 
denial"  to  Mr.  Webster's  statement.  I  quote  the 
following  paragraph  from  him : 

"  Now.  we  undertake  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  rcijinber  of 
the  Society  of  Friends,  in  free  or  slave  States,  who,  whether 
acting  as  a  magistrate  or  a  citizen,  could  carry  out  the  pro 
visions  of  this  moet  atrocious  bill,  without  rendering  himself 
liable  to  immediate  expulsion  from  a  society  whose  character 
would  be  disgraced,  and  whoee  discipline  would  be  violated, 
by  such  action  It  has  been,  in  times  past,  the  misfortune 
of  the  Society  of  Friends  to  be  vilified,  caricatured,  and  mis 
represented  ;  but  we  i  emember  nothing,  even  in  the  old  days 
•of  persecution,  so  hard  to  bear  as  the  compliments  of  the 


Massachusetts  Senator.  Whatever  his '  aithority'  may  hive 
been,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it  unqualifiedly  false  to 
the  lasc  degree." 

Now  what  shall  be  thought  of  a  cause  that 
requires  such  a  defence,  or  of  the  man  that  can 
make  it! 

There  are  many  other  points  presented  by  Mr. 
Webster's  speech  of  the  7th  of  March,  or  by  what 
he  has  since  said  and  written  to  defend  it,  which 
seem  to  me  as  unwarrantable  in  fact,  and  as  rep 
rehensible  in  principle,  as  any  above  enumerated. 
I  shall  close  these  notes,  however,  with  one  com 
ment  more ;  reserving  others,  though  sincerely 
hoping  never  to  have  occasion  to  use  them. 

Among  the  excoriations  with  which  Mr.  Web 
ster  amused  himself  and  his  Southern  new-barn 
pro-slavery  admirers,  on  the  7th  of  March  last, 
he  flayed  nobody  half  so  deeply  or  so  compla 
cently,  as  he  did  his  old  fellow-senators,  Messrs. 
Dix  of  New  York  and  Niles  of  Connecticut.  He 
scored  them  to  the  living  flesh,  and  then  soothed 
their  smarting  wounds  by  vitriol  and  caustic,  as 
though  he  loved  them.  The:;-  n.gency  in  the 
Texas  jwindle,  he  made  odiously  conspicuous.  He 
taunted  them  with  heart-piercing  inuendo  for 
their  compulsory  retirement  from  public  life. 
And  then  he  portrayed  them  as  occupying  their 
enforced  vacation  in  attempting  to  rouse  the  peo 
ple  to  save  those  regions  from  the  curse  of  slavery, 
which,  but  for  their  sins,  never  would  have  been 
exposed  to  it.  He  worked  up  the  scene  so  graphi 
cally,  that  every  one  mocked  at  their  contempti 
ble  plight,  and  at  the  ridiculous  contrast  between 
the  swiftness  of  their  offence,  and  the  lameness  of 
their  expiation.  The  effect  was  dramatic.  The 
pro-slavery  part  of  the  gallery  and  the  floor  re 
sponded  with  a  shout  of  laughter.  Yet  devoted 
and  long-tried  friends  of  Mr.  Webster  were  there, 
whom  no  darkness  of  blindness  could  prevent  fronj 
se^?  &2t  hfc  bjtter  sarcasm  against  the  ex- 
St^xors,  though  calculated  to  make  the  "unskil 
ful  laugh,"  must  make  the  "judicious  grieve." 
They  could  not  fail  to  see  that  he,  Mr.  Webster 
himself,  at  that  very  moment  was  occupying  pre 
cisely  the  same  pro-slavery  ground,  which  Messrs. 
Dix  and  Niles  had  occupied,  when  they  brought 
in  Texas  and  "  re-annexed"  California  and  New 
Mexico.  He  was  exerting  all  his  great  talents  to 
do  an  act  of  the  same  character  which  Messrs.  Dix 
and  Niles  had  done  ; — that  is,  to  open  new  ter 
ritory  to  slavery.  And  doubtless  the  first  thought 
which  arose  in  many  a  mind  was  the  same  which 
spontaneously  arose  in  my  own,  that,  should  he  suc 
ceed  in  arguing  down,  or  laughing  down  the  "Wil- 
mot,"  as  he  twice  scornfully  called  the  Proviso ; 
and  should  he  then  betake  himself  to  penitence 
and  prayer,  and  by  years  of  effort,  strive  to 
stay  back  from  slavery  the  regions  he  had 
doomed  to  it,  he  would  only  have  elevated  himself 
to  the  very  "  platform"  on  which  Messrs.  Dix  and 
Niles  stood  when  he  laughed  at  thfm, 

July  8,  1850. 


; 


